FANDOM


Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

What do you mean it's been in production for several months?Edit

"Star Wars Episode VII has already been in development for several months as of the Disney–Lucasfilm merger." The merger happened about a week before the U.S. Presidential election. That's barely one month, not several! 98.212.98.58 01:56, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

  • The movies have been in planning since before Celebration VI in August. Cade Calrayn StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 02:15, November 23, 2012 (UTC)
    • We can also make the general inference that planning went back at least to the hiring of Kathleen Kennedy on June 1, since she was pretty much brought in for the sole purpose of producing this new film trilogy. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:14, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
    • Not to mention, also, that a week after the Disney announcement we learned that Michael Arndt had already turned in a 40-to-50-page pre-script, meaning he was most likely working on that over the course of several months leading up to the merger. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:18, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

Kasdan and Kinberg not writing VIII and IXEdit

I just read that Lawrence Kasdan and Simon Kinberg are signed on to write for upcoming Star Wars films but not Episodes VIII and IX. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/post-george-lucas-star-wars-394910 there is a link to the source. Matt Seay (talk) 22:16, December 3, 2012 (UTC)

AgainEdit

  • And yet again info is added without any official confirmation (yet). --Sompeetalay (talk) 17:37, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

Frank Oz also interested in returning Edit

The voice of Yoda confirms that, like several other actors listed on this page, has expressed willingness to reprise his role. Worthy of an add? 71.251.174.101 22:23, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: I tried to post a link confirming this, but Wookieepedia's spam filter won't allow me to. 71.251.174.101 22:23, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Cannon OverrideEdit

The sites say the film will be about Luke defeating the empire 30 years after the Battle of Endor but the New Republic has made peace with it and become the Galactic Alliance? Will the film be off cannon or if trying to be then fans will reject the synopses and the writers of the New Republic era and the New Jedi Order era will likely support their protest? --58.7.168.197 09:56, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

  • Please pay attention to the headers at the top of the page. Specifically, the one that flat-out states: "WE DON'T KNOW ANY MORE DETAILS ABOUT STAR WARS EPISODES VII, VIII, or IX THAN YOU DO. PLEASE STOP ASKING." — DigiFluid(Whine here) 13:57, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

What I stated is not what I've read, it is what I've herd. --58.7.168.197 04:52, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

  • If it wasn't on StarWars.com, it's not concretely confirmed, and is either a rumor or…as far as plot details go, a rumor. Look there. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 05:04, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

It is stated on the article of the Sequel Trilogy that it would have nothing to do with the EU beyond the Battle of Endor and the empire are still the antagonist. --124.148.127.77 12:04, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that I was right about the cannonicide, which is one of the reasons why it would fail.--180.216.68.197 02:55, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

Johnny WilliamsEdit

I know that he has not been confirmed to do the music for Episode VII, but since the Mark Hamil, Carrie Fisher and Star Wars actors have shown interest in returning and they have been mentioned in this article, added by me by the way, why should John Williams not be mentioned in the article as showing interest? Matt Seay (talk) 15:37, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

  • I can't speak for whomever may have removed that (it wasn't me), but Lucas has at least met with the big three to talk about Episode VII. The same can't be said for John Williams. That seems like a logical reason for him not to be included in the article, to say nothing of the fact that Abrams generally collaborates with Michael Giacchono. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 16:47, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
    • We've got to think of this as though it were already complete while we update it. If the movie were already out and I were working on the development section, I would mention anyone from the original works that I knew had shown interest. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 16:56, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

If someone can find a source for a quote from him as I have for the actors then maybe we should put it in, right now it is just speculation and such. I would be nice if Johnny came back for future movies but he had made a statement during the recording of the score for Revenge of the Sith that ,"I have spent the better part of 30 years doing these movies and it is a sad but pleasing thing to end my musical journey here." Matt Seay (talk) 17:01, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Alright cool. I think it is okay if we put that people have interest in being part of the production as long as their is a valid source for it. Matt Seay (talk) 18:14, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

  • Of course it's okay. It's relevant info about the topic. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 19:21, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

EU Writers weigh inEdit

I have a link here to an inbterview with several EU writers and their thoughts and hopes for the new films. Here it is, http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/star-wars-expanded-universe-writers-discuss-trilogy.html let me know what is worth putting in the article if anything is worth it. Matt Seay (talk) 16:16, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

What?!! Will have a crossover between Star Wars and Star Trek? Have someone who can explain this? PH Star Wars (talk) 00:35, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

  • Explanation? Sure. Disney. That's the explanation for everything with Star Wars now-a-days.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 00:36, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

Is this section in relation to the Cannon Override section? --58.7.73.157 04:18, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Umm.... Edit

Is the new movie really going to be combined with STAR TREK?! Or is this some sick April Fool's joke?! I'm lost! --71.207.146.7 00:38, April 1, 2013 (UTC)A really confused Star Wars fan

  • Were all lost now that Disney is in control. Gal-icon OLIOSTER (talk) 00:43, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

So, this film will be a crossover? PH Star Wars (talk) 00:38, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

It's a sick, sick joke! I can't belive I fell for that! Camjosh9 (talk) 00:47, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a joke, he did not provide sources. PH Star Wars (talk) 00:52, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

  • Please bear with us as we are currently working on a plan to incorporate all of this new information into the site. Thanks for your patience. Supreme Emperor (talk) 00:55, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
  • Order has gone out the window temporarily while we cope with the infodump we got from LFL. We just felt that this needed to get out ASAP. Pardon our disorganization while the dust settles. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 01:18, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

For all who are interested, there is a discussion going on at this Senate Hall thread. Forum:SH:LFL April surprise

If STAR WARS takes place "along time ago" and STAR TREK takes place in the future, how can they take place at the same time.

RumorEdit

How is it a rumor when I heard her say it the very interview that I linked? Matt Seay (talk) 19:34, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Filming to start in JanuaryEdit

This link confirms that the film will start shooting in January http://www.webpronews.com/star-wars-episode-vii-to-begin-filming-in-january-2013-06 Matt Seay (talk) 09:44, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Abrams may be out Edit

I read that J.J. Abrams is planning to back out of directing Episode 7 because of issues with location, (he doesn't want to shoot in England because he wants to be close to his family). Now, we don't need to post anything about this until he has officially quite, (if he even does at all), but just something to be ready for.--67.189.155.19 02:07, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

  • And LucasFilm has already issued a statement denying this. Cade StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 02:15, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh...nevermind then. lol --67.189.155.19 02:18, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Working Title while in productionEdit

Like Return of the Jedi had a fake title while it was being filmed, episode VII does too, "Foodles Productions LTD. http://moviepilot.com/stories/1069643-star-wars-episode-vii-gets-production-title-and-start-date?stamp=37997&subscribe_to=711868&utm_campaign=1-star-wars-production-titel-revealed&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=fb-stream-post don't know how relevant this is but I thought i should share it. Matt Seay (talk) 19:26, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

Proof to my last editEdit

http://moviepilot.com/stories/1126059-is-this-proof-chewbacca-is-returning-for-star-wars-episode-vii?stamp=37720&subscribe_to=711158&utm_campaign=wookies-return-for-episode-7&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=fb-stream-post there is a link to where I got the info from. Matt Seay (talk) 01:49, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

Read the story you just linked: there is no official confirmation that this is even for Star Wars. Unless and until the casting call is explicitly confirmed to be for Star Wars Episode VII by an official or otherwise reliable source, it doesn't belong in the article. —MJ— Comlink 01:54, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

This site has been known to get a lot of their reporting spot on. I would still keep it in mind. Matt Seay (talk) 01:56, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

Casting PseudonymsEdit

Minor note in that I tried to incorporate the full casting details before realizing it was getting too detailed for a non-character page. Course making character articles would be a can of worms, but make of it what you will.--Hawki (talk) 08:04, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

I have removed this because there is no confirmation that this casting call is for Episode VII. The alleged connection is only a rumor/speculation. Unless and until there is an explicit connection made by an official source, nothing goes in the article. It is very, very rare for unconfirmed rumors and speculation to be worth mentioning, and generally only when the rumor/speculation is so widespread that it becomes notable in and of itself, even if wrong. An rare example of that was the rumors about J.J. Abrams directing that were all over the internet for a day or two before the official announcement; the fact that it leaked so widely before the official announcement was notable, as would have been so many different mainstream news sites all getting it wrong at once. This hasn't come anywhere close to that level of notability. —MJ— Holocomm 01:25, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

posterEdit

can anyone confirm whether this is real? because if it is you may wish to add it to the article Red Eyed Raven (talk)

  • I don't see any indication of that being nothing but a fan-made poster. 1358 (Talk) 00:48, November 9, 2013 (UTC)
    • not that i doubt your judgment, but do you have a reason for doubting the authenticity of the poster, like is their usually a watermark on these sort of things? Red Eyed Raven (talk)
      • Released from an official source rather than a random website would be a good start. 1358 (Talk) 01:10, November 9, 2013 (UTC)
        • Poster was highlighted by Tor as being fanart ages back.--Hawki (talk) 08:31, November 9, 2013 (UTC)

Script finished and Abrams acknowledges casting rumorsEdit

A source from Empire magazine about The Scripts and Abrams. www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=39854 Matt Seay (talk) 23:01, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

Episode VII -- 39 ABY Edit

Just announced via Alan Horn that Episode VII takes place "where 6 left off — and where 6 left off is 35 years ago by the time this is released," or 39 ABY in the Legacy era.

Also announced filming is underway in a minor capacity (ie, not principal).

--Kdenny2 (talk) 13:56, April 6, 2014 (UTC)

Word choice Edit

"Discards" indicates that none of the EU will be used. According to the press release, "Creators of new Star Wars entertainment have full access to the rich content of the Expanded Universe." That doesn't mean they are discarding it per se. Adamwankenobi (talk) 17:51, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

  • You're kidding yourself if you think the EU hasn't been tossed out. Future content may cherrypick elements from the EU, but it's been discarded as a whole, so please stop trying to change it. Cade StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 01:31, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
    • If the EU was being discarded, then the writers would be forbidden from using any of it. Adamwankenobi (talk) 01:33, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
      • It's non-canon and its only purpose now is being used as a resource. If a writer wants to pluck a former EU story out of the bin (with story group approval), then it will become official canon once again. JangFett (Talk) 01:39, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
        • I know, but the wording in this article does not make that clear. Adamwankenobi (talk) 01:43, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
          • It doesn't have to. The EU has no relevance to Episode VII. Cade StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 01:46, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
            • It has as much relevance to Episode VII as it did to the prequels or The Clone Wars series. Only now, the policy has been made official. Would you say that the prequels discarded the EU, when they brought in Aayla Secura and all those Droids references? Adamwankenobi (talk) 01:56, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
              • By definition, Episode VII has nothing to do with the EU. It may incorporate concepts from the EU, but it exists outside the EU. End of story. IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 02:03, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
                • Yes, but why isn't that made clear in the article? Adamwankenobi (talk) 02:08, April 30, 2014 (UTC)

AppearancesEdit

A question: are the droid models for Artoo and Threepio canon or purely EU? If they are purely EU, is Wookieepedia going to be using EU content on non-EU pages? Has a policy been worked out yet? Thanks. Home One (talk) 21:08, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

  • They are canon. They repeatedly call 3PO a Protocol Droid throughout the series, and a Super Battle Droid refers to R2 as a "stupid little Astro Droid.".--75.68.27.163 13:36, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
    • He meant the models not the type of droids. No, I don't think the models are canon any longer. Winterz (talk) 16:08, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
      • Doesn't some of that depend on whether publications like the Visual Dictionaries etc (and content therein) are counted within the Legends-canon or the new continuity? In the specific case of R2 however there's reference to "the R2 unit" on the Official Star Wars Encyclopedia. Slornie (talk) 16:51, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

Alan Horn statements Edit

Alan Horn, Disney chairman, stated that Episode VII would take place thirty-five years after Return of the Jedi, not thirty. Is he source enough or should we stick with the slightly older official statement by Lucasfilm? Have a dark-side filled day! --You may call me Mr. Darth (talk) 22:00, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Tatooine? Edit

Is this video Star Wars: Force for Change - A Message from J.J. Abrams evidence enough to confirm that Tatooine will make an appearance in Star Wars Episode VII? Or too speculative? Have a dark side-filled day! --You may call me Mr. Darth (talk) 13:28, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

The FalconEdit

The picture that was leaked of the Millennium Falcon and then JJ's funny tweet do in a way confirm that it is in the film. Should it be added to appearances yet? Matt Seay (talk) 00:09, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Is this to be updated to the new information the Inquisitors are back as the bad guys and that Darth Vader will cameo in a flashback? -IJosh64 Unsigned comment by Camjosh9 (talk • contribs).

  • No, because that is complete and utter speculation> Cade StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 01:23, August 16, 2014 (UTC)
  • A Plane snapped a pic of the milliniom falcon and an x wing , it's on the news Tacolyte3 (talk) 21:27, September 10, 2014 (UTC) Tacolye3Tacolyte3 (talk) 21:27, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
    • Hey Tacolyte3. The photos are real, but that doesn't mean the Falcon in Episode VII is officially confirmed. We'll wait for official confirmation before adding it to the page. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 21:56, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

New Cast members Edit

They cast Christina Chong , and Game of thrones actor Miltos Yerolemou , oh and it's on the news .Tacolyte3 (talk) 03:41, September 4, 2014 (UTC)Tacolyte3Tacolyte3 (talk) 03:41, September 4, 2014 (UTC)

  • While Chong and Yerolemou were confirmed by highly reputable news sites, they were not officially confirmed by Lucasfilm or Disney in any capacity, so they haven't been added to the article. --Dentface (talk) 23:41, September 10, 2014 (UTC)


Daisy Ridley's characterEdit

I was on the Disney Wiki, and I saw the sequel characters category, and there was someone there named Kira. It says that it's Daisy Ridley's character, and there's concept art. The Disney Wiki's usually reliable on not putting rumors or false stuff up as far as I know, so, what should we think? --Jessanna Stansu, Jedi Knight (talk) 18:59, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

  • If there's a reliable source that this can be sourced to, then sure, Wookieepedia will cover it. But Disney Wiki is not a valid source, regardless of its prior history of rumors (or lack thereof). 1358 (Talk) 19:03, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
    • The name Kira is, at this point, a rumor, and it's been assumed that it's just a production name. Until there's official confirmation about Daisy Ridley's character, we won't be posting a page for it. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 19:13, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
      • Alright, I was just putting the information up there. I was pretty excited when I saw the page. I mean, a possible known character besides Chewie, the droids, and the Big Three. That's pretty exciting.--Jessanna Stansu, Jedi Knight (talk) 13:16, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

Done Filming Edit

Finished Filming They are finally done with the movie, now just waiting for 2015 . It was reported by numerous news sites .Tacolyte3 (talk)Tacolyte3Tacolyte3 (talk)

Warwick DavisEdit

He is going to be in the film. Here is a link. http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/warwick-davis-aka-wicket-returns-for-star-wars-episode-7-20141016 Skywalker2255 (talk) 21:22, November 3, 2014 (UTC)

No Episode VII? Edit

How do we know this isn't merely advertising a la Empire and Jedi? Adamwankenobi (talk) 17:44, November 6, 2014 (UTC)

  • It probably will be (that's what I'm hearing), but until we see the title listed as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, we should keep it at Star Wars: The Force Awakens based on the official announcement. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 17:46, November 6, 2014 (UTC)
    • IMDb seems to think it's a good assumption because they still have "Episode VII" in their title, but I agree that if it's not there officially yet, we should't include it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:03, November 6, 2014 (UTC)
      • Well according to here there is no Episode VII on purpose. Time marches on and all that... --Alientraveller (talk) 18:04, November 6, 2014 (UTC)
        • I have learned to NOT take IMDb into account for anything official. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:07, November 6, 2014 (UTC)
          • If this is true (and not just another one of JJ's diversions), it reminds me of Coppola's original intention to name Godfather 3 simply The Death of Michael Corleone so as to make it a separate entry from the Godfather saga proper. Adamwankenobi (talk) 18:10, November 6, 2014 (UTC)
            • "Films" section of StarWars.com goes with Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens.--Mariobaryla (talk) 18:12, November 6, 2014 (UTC)
              • So now we have two conflicting official sources. Best thing is to wait for further clarification. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:16, November 6, 2014 (UTC)
                • As the official website includes the "Episode VII" title, what source would be most reliable? Roger Murtaugh (talk) 18:34, November 6, 2014 (UTC)

(resent indent) StarWars.com prioritizes the main page for updates. Let's wait a day or so to see what the films page says. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 18:40, November 6, 2014 (UTC)

  • Theforce.net has updated its original scoop, saying that "Lucasfilm has confirmed to us that Episode VII will not be in the title, but it will be in the opening crawl." Adamwankenobi (talk) 18:55, November 6, 2014 (UTC)

My take on the matter - "Episode VII" will be in the opening crawl despite not being in the promotional logos. This article should still be called "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens" if all three original trilogy films are titled with their episode numbers. Episodes IV-VI were not marketed with episode numbers (obviously not IV, as it wasn't Episode IV at the time, but V and VI were definitely V and VI despite not being advertised as such) 107.77.76.57 23:22, November 6, 2014 (UTC)

  • If we are going with Episode VII in the title, should we at least be consistent with our film article titles? Currently the colon follows Star Wars and not the episode number as in the remainder of our film articles. I just thought I should mention that. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:32, November 8, 2014 (UTC)
    • All film titles have been changed to put the colon after Star Wars, because that's what StarWars.com does. You can read what Tope had to say about that here. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 19:35, November 8, 2014 (UTC)

Small wording editEdit

Would make the edit myself, but it's impossible to edit anything on any page on this wiki if you're not registered. "Abrams made a cameo on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, in which he is seen directing R2-D2 on the set of The Force Awakens, only to become frustrated with the droid and quit the film" in the Release section is inaccurate, as he's frustrated by a fish landing on the script, not with R2 himself. On the other hand, is a comedy gag relevant at all, especially when it doesn't even show anything new at all? --86.176.50.156 04:07, November 29, 2014 (UTC)


Latin America Release Edit

It has been confirmed in the Latin American Facebook Star Wars Page, that the movie will hit Latin America's theaters a day erlier:

File:10421118 882794315078753 1995462389972629447 n.jpg

Image literal traduction: Along time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... Enjoy the first look to "Star Wars: El despertar de la fuerza" (The Force awakens), in Latin American theaters starting on December 17 2015.

Jorgito me lo pinto (talk) 15:23, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

Andy SerkisEdit

Andy Serkis has reveled he is the narrator on the trailer. http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a613376/andy-serkis-the-mystery-voice-in-star-wars-the-force-awakens-trailer.html#~oXqMovs59kaUMR Where should this be noted? Skywalker2255 (talk) 00:34, December 4, 2014 (UTC)

Spoilers Edit

So are we just making it a blanket rule that any page associated with The Force Awakens is automatically marked with {{Majorspoiler}}? This isn't at all necessary. There are literally no spoilers at all in any of the pages. I removed the tags on each of the articles, but my edits were quickly reverted by a user who provided the edit description "Everything about this page is a spoiler" on each one. I don't think I need to explain why the article for Unidentified speeder bike contains no spoilers whatsoever, let alone major spoilers. —C Teng (talk) 00:33, December 12, 2014‎ (UTC)

  • That's just how it is.AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 00:35, December 12, 2014 (UTC)
    • It's in The Force Awakens. That means it's a spoiler. It's a courtesy to readers to warn them that such a page contains information about the film, even if that information is limited. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 00:38, December 12, 2014 (UTC)
      • I suppose that's fair, for the type of moviegoers who plan on avoiding all trailers and promotion for Episode VII (though I can't imagine that there are a lot of those). But could we find/create a better template to use? "Major spoilers" is not at all an accurate description of what these articles contain, and it's likely to scare off readers, who might be misled into thinking Wookieepedia has somehow acquired the movie's script, or something. A more generic notice of "This article is related to the upcoming Force Awakens film and may contain mild spoilers" would be more appropriate, I feel. —C Teng (talk) 00:49, December 11, 2014‎ (UTC)
        • Per policy, the template to use at the top of an article is the major spoilers one. The only other template is more for individual page sections, and there are no individual sections on these pages yet. An exception to the policy would need to be voted on, I think. I myself, however, think the current policy suffices. Episode VII is a major release, so basically any information from it can reasonably be called a major spoiler. Better safe than sorry, in my opinion. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 00:54, December 12, 2014 (UTC)

George's treatment Edit

Knowing the way George phrases things to extremes and outright lies about some things, can this article really state in his exact wording that "Disney came up with their own story?" To say that not a single idea, or even the same premise was not taken from George's treatment is just silly. I seem to recall somebody saying that the treatments were part of the deal, and that even during filming, George and JJ were in somewhat frequent contact 107.77.76.91 15:53, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

  • I've been wondering the same thing. After all, this is the same guy who told us for years that there would never be a 7, 8 and 9. Adamwankenobi (talk) 07:12, February 9, 2015 (UTC)


  • The treatments were probably used to some extent. See Simon Kinberg's quote:

Question: How much of Lucas' blueprint do you rely on or is it even in play anymore?

Kinberg: "It depends from movie-to-movie, is the answer. But it's definitely a part of the planning of all the different movies and it was something that I was exposed to from the beginning of the process." (quote from bigshinyrobot website)

Episode 7 itself may have had less input from George Lucas though, because Lawrence Kasdan, speaking about the narrative of episode 7, has said: “We didn’t have anything”. (quote from the theatlantic website)

62.131.21.14 13:35, May 12, 2015 (UTC)

Resistance page nameEdit

We have confirmation that the group opposing the First Order (almost definitely the Rebel Alliance reformed) is known as the "Resistance." How should we go about titling the page for it? It shouldn't be "The Resistance" or "Resistance/Canon"; should we move some Legends pages or something to accommodate for this? Cevan (talk) 22:15, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

  • We don't do assumptions. As such, we should just wait for direct confirmation though honestly, what's the rush? The movie will make that clear enough once it's released. Creating articles on yet-to-be-released content should not be encouraged. Winterz (talk) 22:19, April 16, 2015 (UTC)
    • Assumptions? This was officially confirmed at the TFA gallery at Celebration. Take a look at these images. Cevan (talk) 22:24, April 16, 2015 (UTC)
      • I meant the Rebel Alliance-Resistance connection, sir. Winterz (talk) 03:56, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Edit request Edit

In Appearances X-wing starfighter should be changed to T-70 X-wing starfighter 120.144.170.253 08:47, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

Adding closing tag Edit

Will anybody add closing </ref> tag after wrongly written reference? --77.85.39.42 17:31, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

SW TFA Edit

It is "Star Wars: The Force Awakens", not "Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens". --91.158.81.72 04:12, April 30, 2015 (UTC)

Stennes species present. Possibly even Trinto Duaba. Shown in Vanity Fair article. 128.95.223.222 18:13, May 7, 2015 (UTC)

There's a BTS pic showing a GONK. Should GONK be added to Droids in appearances? I think R6s were confirmed during the 2nd trailer presentation. 128.95.223.222 18:21, May 7, 2015 (UTC)

Tasu LeechEdit

  • Hello, I noticed that the Tasu Leech page was deleted for not coming from a verifiable source, and his mention in the appearances section here was removed (with this being the source). I was just wondering if an Amazon listing was considered verifiable? Thank you, Shockwave42 (talk) 23:38, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

Disney WikiEdit

This is from the Disney Wiki, the Article about The Force Awakens. Can anyone find if any of this info is true? http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_VII:_The_Force_Awakens#Cast Skywalker2255 (talk) 06:55, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

D23 PosterEdit

They reveled and gave away a new poster to people who went to the D23 Disney Expo. Can that be featured in the article or the info box? Skywalker2255 (talk) 10:46, August 19, 2015 (UTC)

  • Considering it has been our practice to use posters for our films' main infobox images, I've added this poster to this article's infobox. This is the first official Episode VII poster (not counting the logo poster giveaway from Celebration), courtesy of artist Drew Struzan, who also did the original trilogy Special Edition posters and the prequel trilogy posters. Once they release the film's official cinematic one-sheet poster, that will become the new, permanent infobox picture. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:20, August 28, 2015 (UTC)
    • Should we replace the image with one that doesn't have the camera flash over Kylo Ren's face? For example, this file has no glare or anything, but does not have has high a resolution as the current photo. --Dentface (talk) 17:25, August 28, 2015 (UTC)
      • TFN's poster has lens flare and is also crooked, but it appears to be the sharpest, highest-resolution version available. The one you link to crops off the bottom of the poster (notice the Lucasfilm credit line is missing), while this one is less sharp and has fingerprints on it. The TFN version isn't perfect, but I think it's the best we've got for now. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:29, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

BattlesEdit

Among the events seen in the latest trailer, it looks as if there is a battle going on at the Planet where the Resistance makes their base. Should this get an article yet? Skywalker2255 (talk) 05:17, October 21, 2015 (UTC)

  • There is no pressing need to make pages for every unnamed thing in the trailer at this point when it would be much easier to wait until we have something we can use to identify it Overlordjeff (talk) 08:14, October 21, 2015 (UTC)

Differences from the trailersEdit

In the second trailer, a voice says the following: "The Force is strong in my family. My father has it, I have it. My sister has it - you have that power too." This line of dialogue does not occur in the movie. Worth mentioning somewhere? -- LordTBT Talk! 05:24, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

  • That dialogue is taken from Luke in RotJ. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 05:26, December 18, 2015 (UTC)
    • This confused me too. However, I went back and watched the scene from RotJ again. To clarify, the "You have it too" line comes before the other part, but in the trailer it's edited to sound as if it's a continuation of the other part. So it's more misdirection than "missing". There's a similar thing with Maz Kanata's "I've seen your eyes" speech, but I can't be sure how exactly that went in the movie. In retrospect, it feels as if Rey's visions were tacked on to provide a teaser trailer for Ep. VIII and to avoid the charge that they were a bait and switch from the Trailers than an organic part of the movie... --Udesilva (talk) 23:08, December 25, 2015 (UTC)

Possible Foreshadowing Edit

If possible could someone try to compare Snoke's facial structure to Mark Hamill? Andy Serkis said this about his character. 'Without giving too much away at this point, he has a very distinctive, idiosyncratic bone and facial structure.' Mind you he could have been talking about the giant crack. However, considering this movie was 70% New Hope. One could make a safe bet that VIII will follow Empire. What if Luke is Rey's Father and he is also Snoak? I mean how else would Kylo Ren be tempted by the Dark Side? - Kuchiri

Luke's old lightsaber returns Edit

So Luke's blue lightsaber made a return in the movie. But how is that possible? Last time we saw it was in Empire Strikes Back stuck in his arm falling in cloud city? Compared to the expanded universe the timeline would be broken. So, is there anything else published which could explain this? PakLurah (talk) 16:31, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

The new Canon treats most of the old Expanded Universe as Legends. The timeline is not broken; a new timeline has taken its place. That being said, Legends tell of The Last Command, which sets Luke against someone wielding the lightsaber lost in Luke's battle with Vader in Cloud City. If i remember right, that book never explains how the lightsaber was recovered, either, but in The Empire Strikes Back we only see it start to fall, not how it falls (straight down? spinning? at an angle? in an arc? buffeted by the wind?) or how far it falls, or where it falls (onto a ledge? past a magnet or tractor beam? ricocheting off a flying droid?). So even though officially, we don't know what happened to Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber between Luke's fight with Vader and the next time we see it, logically it is possible someone recovered it. --71.121.143.84 01:50, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

You might want to add why Luke Skywalker goes into hiding, because he was training a new generation of Jedi and one of the trainees turns to the dark side (assuming he is Ren, Luke's nephew??) and kills the rest of the trainees, and Luke blames himself for the deaths. --Appache1 (talk) 01:41, December 21, 2015 (UTC)Appache1

Reason for Luke's hiding Edit

You might want to add why Luke Skywalker goes into hiding, because he was training a new generation of Jedi and one of the trainees turns to the dark side (assuming he is Ren, Luke's nephew??) and kills the rest of the trainees, and Luke blames himself for the deaths. --Appache1 (talk) 01:43, December 21, 2015 (UTC)Appache1

Appearance in Rey's vision Edit

I'm not sure if this has been confirmed or not, but I and many others believe to have heard Sidious' voice early on in Rey's vision. Has this been confirmed, and if so should he be added to the Appearances? Reddyredcp (talk) 21:21, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

Clone Army ReferenceEdit

The line, "Perhaps, Snoke should use a clone army." Isn't that an indirect reference to the Grand Army of the Republic? JediMaster1987 (talk) 00:08, December 22, 2015 (UTC)

Time frame Edit

As there is a debate over when chronologically TFA takes place, I'll provide a source proving it takes place 34 years after ROTJ, not 30.

From an interview with JJ Abrams regarding how R2-D2 woke up:

The story group’s thinking went back to the 1977 original movie, when R2-D2 accessed the Empire’s mainframe as the heroes searched for the captured Princess Leia. “We had the idea about R2 plugging into the information base of the Death Star, and that’s how he was able to get the full map and find where the Jedi temples are,” Arndt said.

Abrams says he chose to spell this out indirectly in the movie because he didn’t want the story to get bogged down in “how s–t happened 30 years ago.”

“But the idea was that in that scene where R2 plugged in, he downloaded the archives of the Empire, which was referenced by Kylo Ren,” Abrams said. Thirty-eight years later, in both our own and galactic time, that data becomes useful in The Force Awakens when a new droid approaches the dormant R2.

So there you have it Primarch Dysley (talk) 01:07, December 22, 2015 (UTC)

  • That could easily be an off-hand comment from J.J. rather than him being totally specific. Star Wars: The Force Awakens: The Visual Dictionary, written by Pablo Hidalgo of the Lucasfilm Story Group, says 30 years. So without any sort of clarifying context to J.J's quote, I'm more inclined to go with the Story Group. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:12, December 22, 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, Chewbacca is 234 according to the Dictionary, and he was officially born in 200 BBY. The author Pablo Hidalgo also said on Twitter: "34 years after IV. 30 years after VI." From his tweet on R2-KT in TFA: "[question handle deleted] Is it the same droid from the TCW movie? That would be the intent. Droid got around in 56 years." The movie is placed in 22 BBY + 34 years = 56. I suggest adding the time since ANH to the infobox also, just to make it clear it's no longer ~30 years after ROTJ, but rather 34 ABY exactly. --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 22:25, December 22, 2015 (UTC)
      • Just keep in mind that BBY/ABY are not canonical terms. The Galactic Standard Calendar has not been established in canon. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:59, December 22, 2015 (UTC)

About astronomical error of movie creators Edit

Why destruction of the Hosnian system was visible from the surface of Takodana? This is not possible in such a short period of time, interstellar distances are too great. Now i have an answer: Side-effect or Cherenkov Radiation from hyperspace beam of Starkiller base.

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation does not itself travel faster than light. No explanation is given in the Movie or the Novelization as to why such destruction should be visible with the naked eye. In the Novelization, Leia is initially informed by a Resistance Officer using his instruments of the destruction just before she feels the deaths through the Force -- yet on Takadona, Han, Chewie, Finn and others at Maz Kanata's castle are able to see something that looks like a supernova in the sky. (It's not made clear whether they are seeing the destruction of the Hosnian worlds or of the energy from Starkiller base).--Udesilva (talk) 23:27, December 25, 2015 (UTC)

The shuttle that Leia and the Resistance troopers arrived in at Takadona--what's the name and type? Thanks.Some one very clever. (talk) 10:06, December 25, 2015 (UTC)

34 ABY Edit

Shouldn't the events that took place in the movie be labeled to take place at 34 ABY instead of the evermore clunky "30 years after the battle of Endor"? The Battle of Endor took place in 4 ABY and it's 30 years later so shouldn't this change be made?

--108.6.11.156 14:30, December 25, 2015 (UTC)

  • Hey. Good question. BBY and ABY are not canon terms. The Galactic Standard Calendar is only found in Legends. Because of that, we don't use BBY and ABY in our canon pages. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 14:48, December 25, 2015 (UTC)
  • Why? it doesn't really make sense to me. JS-4422 23:26, May 6, 2016 (UTC)

Typos/poor grammar that cannot be corrected because page is protected Edit

- "Ben then thrusted his weapon through Han's chest." -- "thrust", not "thrusted". It might be better still to say "Kylo Ren then ignited his lightsaber such that it impaled Han through the chest".

- need to explain why Kylo Ren decided that it was no longer necessary to capture the Map inside BB8: he glimpsed the Map within Rey's mind and thought that he could retrieve the information from her (whom he already held) more readily than trying to capture the droid against a far stronger opposition than he had anticipated.

--Udesilva (talk) 21:37, December 25, 2015 (UTC)

Addition and Clarification proposal Edit

I have an addition and clarification I want to add in, but since I'm new, I can't. The clarification is under 'Escape From Jakku,' This sentence is confusing: "Making his way to the crash, he found Poe's jacket, but no other sign of the man, and the fighter sunk into the sand." I know 'he' is Finn, but in the second of these two sentences, it's ambiguous until the very end of the sentence. Changing it to "Making his way to the crash, Finn found Poe's jacket, but no other sign of the man, and the fighter sunk into the sand." would remove the ambiguity.

The addition would be in the 'Rey's Capture' section, where it discusses her interrogation by Kylo Ren. It skips over a simple detail about how Ren was initially able to enter Rey's mind, describing an ocean with an island, perhaps seeing the future (when Rey finds Luke at the end of the movie), proceeded by knowing that Rey has seen the map, but not quite able to see the map itself. After this, Ren senses that Rey is afraid of Ren, saying "Don't be afraid. I feel it too." (I'm a little fuzzy on the details, even after seeing it twice. Darn you short-term memory!) She then says to Ren: "Get out of my mind" then starts to fight back and reach Ren's mind. If this could be added into this section, that would be great!

Wheatley36 (talk) 04:52, January 1, 2016 (UTC)


Plot summary Edit

Should it be written in the past tense? It's written in the present tense for all the other movies (e.g. "After defeating the small number of guards defending the ship, Darth Vader arrives to assess the damage. Vader is outraged and questions Captain Antilles, whom he eventually strangles and kills.")24.250.52.28 22:09, January 1, 2016 (UTC)

I think that it should be present tense. According to this policy, past tense should be used for in-universe articles, and since this is an out-of-universe (real life) article we should follow regular conventions when writing plot summaries. GhostUser (talk) 21:27, January 2, 2016 (UTC)

"Instead, Rey gives the lightsaber to Finn, telling Han she doesn't have time to tell him how she got the lightsaber."

That's wrong. Rey left the lightsaber behind. Maz Kanata gave it to Finn. Unsigned comment by 2.121.2.201 (talk • contribs).

Thanks. Surely we can unprotect the article now? --Alientraveller (talk) 12:30, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

I actually have a question about the plot summary. Are deleted scenes being included, because Rey's vision scene includes her seeing Cloud City, even though that's not in the actual movie. The Ultimate Dude (talk) 03:33, March 4, 2016 (UTC)

Cloud City's distinctive corridors are shown at the start of her vision. --Alientraveller (talk) 03:35, March 4, 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for that clarification!The Ultimate Dude (talk) 20:16, March 5, 2016 (UTC)

Trivia? Edit

  • Excuse me, but I think a Trivia section is needed. Such as the fact C-3P0 was remodeled sometime before the movie [new suit].* ThePotatoReader (talk) 19:43, February 12, 2016 (UTC)

Possible rebellion era capital shipsEdit

http://caps.pictures/201/5-starwars-force/full/sw-force-awakens-movie-screencaps.com-8252.jpg It looks like the New Republic's fleet is made up of old Rebellion ships and new unidentified ships. On the left we can see a Nebulon B frigate and I'm not sure, but does the one just above the Nebulon look like a Mon Calamari cruiser?

  • Yes but they could be meteorites because none survived or evacuated in time. JS-4422 12:59, May 6, 2016 (UTC)

Familiar facesEdit

Hang on. When the Resistance grows into a crowd when the Millennium Falcon leaves, there are some familiar faces including:

Good spot on Ello Asty; although, since he died, it has to be assumed it is just another Abednedo. Regarding the droids, other than their color, there's no reason to believe they are the two you mentioned. -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 12:02, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
Pablo Hidalgo has confirmed that the Abednedo was a different pilot and that we will learn his identity soon. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:23, April 23, 2016 (UTC)


However the helmet is not seen so your right. JS-4422 23:54, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of the filmEdit

I'm surprised this article doesn't acknowledge that there were plenty of Star Wars fans that didn't like the movie. The article doesn't mention that Lucas didn't like it either.73.41.10.21 02:13, May 2, 2016 (UTC)

  • Lucas' comments were made before he saw the film, so they weren't a critical reaction to the movie itself. As far as reviews go, we tend cite reviews from critics rather than just the feelings of Star Wars fans. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 02:43, May 2, 2016 (UTC)

108.222.135.118 18:08, May 4, 2016 (UTC)He is right. There are not enough negative reviews listed here, and George Lucas did have a negative reaction. There are some talk topics above us right now which suggest Lucas is a liar for changing his mind about 7, 8, and 9, and try to pretend he lied about them leaving his treatment of the story out of the picture. But based on how George Lucas has reacted negatively to the story, vehemently even, and then recovering his courtesy for the sake of the new generation and generousness, we can say the article is missing some things. There was a whole controversy about his sentiment of selling his children (Star Wars) to slavers, Trandoshan or of the human race, it doesn't matter. We can speculate whether he feels played.

But I concur with the negative receptions and can testify they do exist. This wiki is composed of Star Wars fans, some for the complete Saga of Star Wars, others against its crucial and very good backstory in the prequels. There are some for George Lucas' changes for continuity and completion of the Original Trilogy, there are some against. Some choose Episode VII for not being Lucas' work, others ignore that and call it a remake. The lines are divided. Invoking Neutral policy, the reception should be extended.

I could make a case for why it was a remake. It could be several articles long in itself. But how about just sticking to some of the bigger facts and pointing out not everyone liked it, and the reception died a little after the emotional reintroduction to Episodes IV through VI. ; )

Min SakulEdit

Who's Min Sakul? JS-4422 12:51, May 5, 2016 (UTC)

To clear up an old disturbance in the Force... Edit

108.222.135.118 19:20, May 4, 2016 (UTC) I hate this fake Star Wars, but as for the radiation visible throughout the galaxy, I can only state the following: FTL. Faster than Lightspeed. It is what happens when you travel through hyperspace. Now there are some things which only may be wrong with the fact it doesn't seem to actually enter this dimension of hyperspace. You could debate with the analysis of Episode II: Attack of the Clones, that the refugee transport carrying Anakin and Padme is travelling quickly through hyperspace. However, this was likely a hyperspace node, where the ship readjusts course before jumping back into hyperspace. We have observed hyperspace and its black and blue swirls and the fact it is more of a dimension of faster travel in space and time.

Yet, if the technology avails it in such a way it travels through hyperspace or at faster than light speeds in this manner, who I am to object to their technology? The beam was visible close to planets and throughout the galaxy as well. All radiation which is incident and a side-effect of whatever was fired will travel faster than "lightspeed" after such a journey, just as the weapon was fired to quickly reach its target in mere moments it seems.

THIS IS NOT STAR WARS, though. Hyperspace, in the movies, not the EU alone, was broken throughout already anyway. The weapon was referred to as a hyper-lightspeed or super-hyperspace weapon, when the Millenium Falcon already was travelling across the galaxy in the time it took to have a chat with Finn and Rey. The indication is Abrams took notes from how it felt to go from jumping to lightspeed and having a similar conversation in the lounge in scenes in Episode IV. The fact greater time lapse is implied or spoken of in and out of the movies, which might as well include the reference to less than twelve parsecs, if one is taking things that simply, was neglected. No matter what, the Millenium Falcon still has problems from the old movies, and should not therefore have a better hyperdrive even if that was invented.

But that is the answer to the interstellar light show. It is just plain logic. Maintain belief and enjoy something instead of duping yourself into a greater myth than in a story. Just know when it is a messed up knock off instead of a sequel, contradictory, and dumb.

Hosnian Tom KaneEdit

During the destruction of Hosnian system the Star Wars.com states that Tom Kane was a citizen on Hosnian Prime and said "What's That?" however I could not hear that. JS-4422 03:54, May 14, 2016 (UTC)

The guy on the right says "What is it". Maybe that's what the page is referring to? -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 08:45, May 14, 2016 (UTC)


  • I could hear nothing like that. JS-4422 11:29, May 14, 2016 (UTC)
  • I could of heard it, so it was the guy with glasses? JS-4422 11:42, June 11, 2016 (UTC)
    • No, it was the guy to Korrie's left. He was standing with a woman. -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 02:05, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant JS-4422 03:48, June 12, 2016 (UTC) Resistance starbird

3D version. Edit

Hi.

Wanted to ask something.

As you probably already know, there's a 3D Collector's Edition coming out in the fall. Should we create a separate article for it, or should we just create a section for it on the main page? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 01:39, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

I've already added a paragraph on it in the home media section, however, looking at the articles for the other films, I don't think we make separate pages for special editions. -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 22:51, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

typo in first paragraph Edit

First paragraph should end with a period, not a comma,

71.121.143.204 01:31, December 14, 2017 (UTC)