Talk:Star Wars sequel trilogy/Archive 1

Lots of cleanup
This article needs a lot of cleanup if it wants to avoid going through AfD again. It just barely missed being deleted, and this seems like a pretty important article to me. We need to fix this up as soon as possible. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, in my opinion this article shouldn't even exsist. There is no sequel trilogy, and there probably never will be. --The Dark Lord of Wiki (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * it's pretty clear Lucas planned to make a sequel trilogy at some point, but most likely no longer does. This article should exist because it clears up any confusion that may arise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.158.231 (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, lots of people STILL have questions about possible future sequels and how the whole sage evolved and this article clarifies these things better then any I have ever seen. I think for most star wars fans this would be among the top ten article pages they would want to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.219.210 (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I only want to say, thanks for this article. Didn't know it was nominated to be deleted, else I would have gave my two cents. Strangely people seem to disbelieve me when I say that the first first plan for starwars was 12 movies. And this sourced article helps me a lot. Somehow people don't believe you when you say that a certain director is trying to retcon the real world.


 * I agree. Hope this doesn't get deleted. Lucas, while incredibly creative and such, has a long history of "making it up as he goes along" and then later veheminently denying things he said earlier.  Growing up, I heard numerous origin tales of the Star Wars universe from Lucas which he religiously changed every five years or so.  Whether this is due to bad memory or some hidden lying streak, we'll never know.  But yes, way back in the late 70s, early 80s, it was widely put about by Lucas that he planned 12 movies but this changed. The main problem at the present is that Lucas, in true Lucas form, is denying that such statements have ever been made.  I suppose he's not the kind of man who can say "Hey, I changed my mind, alright?!?" Yanqui9 (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So this article is imho pretty neat. Please don't attempt to delete it. If someone ever tries. You hereby have my AGAINST vote. --Soyweiser (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Expanded universe
Wow!Hold on there,there's more to the story: Leia and Han had three children:One named Anakin,the other named Jacen and Janina. Satipo (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)SatipoSatipo (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Expanded universe
Wow!Hold on there,there's more to the story: Leia and Han had three children:One named Anakin,the other named Jacen and Janina. Satipo (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)SatipoSatipo (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS
There are still lots of things to tell,man.I mean like what about the Imperial remants.Obvisously all of the empire wasn't at th 2nd Death Star and some as we saw,was evacuting.And what about:Mara Jade,Klye Kartan,Jacen,Jaina and Anikin Solo,Ben Skywalker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z Thun Der (talk • contribs) 00:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

1983 Time Article
Ok, I can't find it either. What I did find, however, was the May issue when Lucas was on the cover. The closest it comes to mentioning sequels, however, is this: "If he does carry the story any further, he will probably go back to the beginning, before these characters were born, and make what he calls a "prequel," another trilogy that would explain how the Republic fell. Only after that—and certainly not before the 1990s—would he do the sequel and show what happens to the Star Wars trio after Jedi." I don't know that we can call that a plan for nine movies... Can anyone else find a different Time article on the subject of Star Wars that mentions this? Khalfani Khaldun  04:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the relevant paragraphs from the Time May 1983 article: The films that record what went on in the beginning—if they are ever made—will be altogether different in look and tone from the existing trilogy, says Lucas. They will be more melodramatic, showing the political intrigue and Machiavellian plotting that led to the downfall of the once noble Republic. They will have only enough outward action to keep the plot moving. Obi-Wan Kenobi, the elderly Jedi who was played by Alec Guinness in the Star Wars series, and Darth Vader will be seen as younger men, while Luke Skywalker may make a brief appearance as a baby in Episode III.
 * The sequels, the three movies that would follow Jedi, are considerably vaguer. Their main theme will be the necessity for moral choices and the wisdom needed to distinguish right from wrong. There was never any doubt in the films already made; in those the lines were sharply drawn, comic-book-style. Luke, who will then be the age Obi-Wan Kenobi is now, some place in his 60s, will reappear, and so will his friends, assuming that the creator decides to carry the epic further. Hamill and the others will get first crack at the roles—if they look old enough. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's it. That was actually in the refs already. (However, the link took you to the first page of the article, not the third page, which is where the relevant paragraphs come from.) Zagalejo^^^ 07:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, same issues, different story. That's why I couldn't find it. ;) Khalfani  Khaldun  08:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Retcon by Lucas
I think this article leans heavily toward the POV that Lucas himself has been "officially" pushing since 1995 - that the third trilogy was a concoction by the media. But that's just not true. Between 1979 and 1995, in articles and interview, Lucas did refer to the third trilogy - and even a couple of times after 1995. In 1980, he stated that "STAR WARS is really three trilogies, nine films. The first trilogy covers the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire, the middle trilogy the fall of the Empire, and the last trilogy involves the rebuilding of the Republic.  It won't be finished for probably another 20 years."  I can understand him changing his idea about what the story should be, but stating that it was never part of the plan is not completely true. Macduff (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion
This page should be deleted. It has nothing to offer! It is about a series of flms that are evidently pure fucking fantasy! 76.169.92.56 (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What, did you think Star Wars was a documentary? ;-) WCityMike (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

--
 * It offers a clear and cited answer to what is probably one of the most asked questions, persistently, by Star Wars fanatics. It's value is justified as much as it is to have Wikipedia articles about Star Wars at all. -Anonymous?

Merger Discussion
Why isn't this folded into the main trilogy article? If there is no such "sequel trilogy", does it warrant it's own page? I think I'll fold this into the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.146.55 (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has already been merged. It's (in my opinion) orphaned and redundant. (Chrisbuzzard (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Unfortunately, I think you'll find that you're in the minority with that opinion. Only some of the information was copied to Star Wars, and as to your claim that the article is orphaned, that's clearly an error on your part, as more than 100 items link to this article. As to your recent attempts to PROD the article (and your follow-up improper AfD notice), this article has survived multiple attempts to delete it - the last one was closed as Speedy Keep just under three months ago. I'd lay money on the next one being closed the same way. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How many different sources needed to be cited to prove that something won't be made and probably never was intended to be made? A separate page, seriously? I would LOVE to see legitimate justification for what is for all intents and purposes, a fanboy page with personal attachments. (Chrisbuzzard (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC))
 * I see you're going for the personal attack/vaguely insulting comments route as opposed to discussing the actual issue. Nice. No one is claiming that films are going to be made now - however, this was not always the case, and as a matter of historical record, Lucasfilm once made statements to the contrary. This article is extremely well-sourced with verifiable quotes from legitimate sources covering the last thirty years - I'm curious why you think that this is some "fanboy page"? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Could the article not be renamed to reflect the topic's status as reported or rumored? "Star Wars sequel trilogy" is misleading because there is no actual trilogy.  Judging from the history of AfDs, the article is here to stay, but the name could be better. Erik (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been called several things in the past - Star Wars Future Movies, Sequel trilogy, The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy, Sequel trilogy (Star Wars)... it was moved to this title in 2007 to match the Star Wars original trilogy and Star Wars prequel trilogy pages. And believe me, this article has been in poor shape in the past, but most of the fancruft stuff was removed years ago. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be consistent with the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy. There is no "sequel trilogy" of which to speak.  We should consider a name that reflects the rumored nature of this topic.  Using "rumored" is not a bad thing because per WP:CRYSTAL, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Erik (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You could use this logic for nearly ANYTHING if you bothered to do enough research on it. "Gee Mel, are you going to make a Lethal Weapon 11?" and then find every documented time some journalist asks him if there will be another.  I'm not disputing the validity of the rumor, but I won't change my opinion of dedicating a separate page to offhand comments Lucas made in interviews is what gives wikipedia a bad name. (Chrisbuzzard (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Judging from the references in the article, the rumors are not exactly in passing. Is it really that important about if the information is on its own page or not?  Multiple editors seem to consider that this topic has enough information for its own page, compared to talk about Lethal Weapon 5 or talk about Jurassic Park IV. Erik (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How long are we going to keep this up? It seems this article will go through more of the AfD process for the indefinite future. As long as the verifiable information is somewhere in a Star Wars article, be it this one, or merged with the main article, then there shouldn't be any problem.-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 20:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia was given a bad name?129.139.1.68 (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Four trilogies, not three...
I remember hearing about a total of 12 movies back in the late 70's, not nine. Can anyone confirm this? Did George Lucas originally plan to do 12 movies in the series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.64.64 (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Time magazine once reported that there would be 12 total movies. This is briefly mentioned in the article. I don't know if those 12 movies were supposed to be divided into trilogies. Zagal e jo^^^ 00:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a Mark Hamill interview, where he says that Lucas said to him on-set that he would like him to return to film the 12th film as a Yoda-like character. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

IESB Article
http://iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10291:iesb-exclusive-the-line-starts-hereagain-new-star-wars-movies-planned&catid=41:news&Itemid=71

Is this reference-able for the article, seems to be new information from a proven source of Lucasfilm leaks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.38.246 (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point in time, it's merely speculation which has been denied by Lucasfilm.-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 10:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sequel Trilogy redundant due to the novels?
I wonder if the article should discuss the impact of the novels. The books, of course, carry the Star Wars story forward from Return of the Jedi by decades, featuring Han and Leia's offspring, future Jedi, etc. It has been stated elsewhere that the novels are considered official canon by Lucasfilm. So would it be fair to say that their existence has negated the need for a further trilogy? Obviously it's OR to just come out and say it in the article, but surely Lucas must have addressed this in his denials (unless, I suppose the recent rumors result in some of the novels being adapted). 68.146.64.9 (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not necessary to make mention of the novels of the Expanded Universe. Many of the stories in the EU contradict one another, while others have been contradicted by events in the prequel trilogy. While it is true that the EU is sanctioned by Lucasfilm, they do not consider themselves to be beholden to it in any way.Wyldstaar (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that depends on how you view "beholden." Lucasfilm as a whole does its best to try and fit all pieces of canon, even the contradictory parts, together. They consider it all canon, they just have levels of canon. George Lucas himself doesn't consider himself beholden by it; if Lucas wants to do something that contradicts 15 books then he'll do it, and Lucasfilm will try to fit it all together later. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Article is Strangely Written
I've added a few little tweaks to the article, but I think it probably needs to be completely overhauled. I'm not sure why the author focused on quoting Time magazine writers when there are plenty of quotes from George Lucas about what he intended to do. For example, I don't think Time reviewer Nicholas Wapshott actually talked to anyone from Lucasfilm about his speculation that Lucas had not planned any sequels. Lucas was talking sequels the day the film was released. He had signed the cast to sequels. He had the rights from Fox Studios to self-produce sequels as well as merchandising. On page 137 of Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas it details that Lucas fought for sequel rights. He was clearly thinking about at least three movies before the movie was released in 1977.

I think confusion about this topic comes from the fact that Lucas has been dismissing talk of the final three films. Around 1999 he started saying there wasn't going to be a final three because he would be in his 70s by the time the movies would wrap up. In 2001 he outright dismissed the final sequels saying he made them up for the press. (Interesting, though, he had been talking about them for 30 years!)

So I don't buy the point of the article saying that Lucas was forced into doing sequels. He was hot to do them even before Star Wars came out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.162.96 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have content to add, as well as reliable sources that are verifiable, then by all means add them.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 20:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

SW Episode VII merge
Whoever merged the Star Wars Episode VII article into this article: that was rather abrupt and, in my opinion, not a smart move. Clearly the film will warrant its own article and there is already enough information and sources to justify it. Let's kill that redirect as soon as possible and restore the standalone article. MaxVeers (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously? I can't even imagine what would go into an Episode VII article at this early date.  It was just announced today, for Pete's sake.  Powers T 21:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We have an announcement date (today), a release year (2015), a distributor (Disney), an executive producer (Kennedy), and a creative consultant (Lucas). Plenty of sources from mainstream media and a press release. Seems like enough for a stub to me. MaxVeers (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A stub, yes, but it's not usually a good idea to create articles that can't be expanded beyond a stub. It will fit just fine in this article.  Powers T 23:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It will be easy to expand it beyond a stub once it comes out. Of course, that's not until 2015. At the very least, the article should be created by then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.55.120 (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the AfD for Star Wars Episode VII ended with it being redirected to this article, there might be some bits from that article that could be merged into this. The last version of Star Wars Episode VII is here. Barsoomian (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Today a user ignored the AfD and recreated the article at Star Wars Episode VII (film). Great... -Fnlayson (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I changed it into a redirect. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this really what the source says?
This exchange doesn't make a lot of sense:

"Q: Does that mean you won't do Episodes VII, VIII and IX?

Lucas: I will do VII, VIII and IX.

Q: You will not? Will they be made by somebody else?

Lucas: yes. They will.

Q: So this trilogy ends it?

Lucas: This is not it. This is not all there is."

The questions don't make sense with Lucas's answers, and Lucas's answers contradict themselves. Is this a misquote or what? 99.17.213.178 (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. Looking at the history, someone changed all the negatives to positives and made the exchange nonsensical.99.17.213.178 (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Interpretation of Disney acquisition article
In this Wikipedia article, it is claimed that episode VII will come out with episode VIII and IX each coming out two or three years later. The following is the quote from the referenced article:

"In 2015, we're planning to release Star Wars Episode 7 – the first feature film under the "Disney-Lucasfilm" brand. That will be followed by Episodes 8 and 9 – and our long term plan is to release a new Star Wars feature film every two to three years."

This indicates to me that episodes VII, VIII, and IX will come out (with unknown times in-between) and then after episode IX, and undetermined number of Star Wars movies will be released with two or three years in-between each movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troak (talk • contribs)
 * It could be interpreted either way, that they're planning on having two or three years between each sequel, or that they're planning additional sequels. However, in the absence of any direct mention of additional sequels, we can only mention 8 and 9. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The press release seems to me to indicate further films after the new trilogy at an interval of "every two to three years". The way I read it, more movies are planned after the new trilogy.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Cast reactions
According to an unnamed source close to Ford, the actor is reportedly upbeat about being cast, but is waiting on a script and director. --Cheesemeister (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

OBJECTION
I am sorry but the consensus was to KEEP the Star Wars VII article (Which won the count with 89 Votes) not redirect not merge. I am constantly reminded why I retired from active editing... the consensus was KEEP!!! Apparently our votes DO NOT COUNT! Magnum Serpentine (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, they don't. See WP:CLOSEAFD "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." Venting here will achieve nothing. You want to object, go to Deletion review. Barsoomian (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Speculation
I just deleted a few paragraphs that speculated on the writers, actors and directors. Because that's all they were, speculation. If you look at the sources cited, they're all "unnamed sources" and "possible" and etc, etc. Just a way for them to churn page hits in the absence of any actual facts. There was every famous name listed as director, for instance. Saying so and so hasn't ruled out doing something and he's immediately "possible". It's just a huge waste of time. Until someone authoritative confirms something on the record, just leave it to the gossip magazines.Barsoomian (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Some of the sources are reliable sources, such as CNN's subsidiary EW.com. That speculation has occurred is indisputable. Some of the reports come from reliable sources and cannot be discounted in this way. Don't be an overzealous policeman, Bars. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 17:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * CNN is a very reliable speculative news source as well as others ;-) --109.206.133.206 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A agree with &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298;. The whole thing is just speculation at the moment. The Studios have declared their INTENT to film more films, but until the cameras start filming it can all change. As the information was cited from CNN (Which I believe is a reliable source) I have re added the information to the best of my ability. If I have missed something out please re add it. If you are going to update the information, by all means do. But you might want to declare it first as someone might come and edit it while you are rewriting a section. MisterShiney (  ✉  )  17:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

For example, look at this rubbish I deleted that 5 minutes later was restored: In early November 2012, it was reported that Michael Arndt, the Academy Award winning screenwriter for Little Miss Sunshine and Toy Story 3 had been chosen to write the screenplay. According to the report, Arndt's treatment of the film is said to call for much older versions of the main characters returning along with other fan favorites. Wikipedia now says Arndt "had been chosen to write the screenplay.". The source does not say that. Even the headline says "May Have Found Its Writer". There is a total lack of any critical assessment and the vaguest hint of a famous name is pasted in and turned into a definite fact.

This is even more plain with the directors, which is completely absurd: TEN DIRECTORS are listed as "reported to be in talks"! Nothing but rumours, ultimately sourced to "unnamed person close to X" or other circumlocution, meaning pure speculation. Complete waste of time. In reality, not one single person is officially attached to the film as writer, director or actor. I can see the fans are determined to fill this article up with this fantasy dressed up as fact, so rather than play King Canute, it's best if I just step away and leave you to it. Barsoomian (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

So are you of the opinion that they only approach one person to do the job? Or do you think they save time and approach multiple people ask them if they are interested? Point is, you cant delete chunks of cited material claiming that it is all speculation! Not without opening a discussion on it first. MisterShiney (  ✉  )  17:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What evidence is that anyone has been approached? None at all that I saw. Some have been "approached" by reporters asking if they're interested. No one is definitely saying no, so they go on the list. Ten directors. Really? Disney approached ten directors in the last week? The real approaches won't be announced til they're actually signed. The text cited itself says it's speculation, it's not my "claim". And you restored the para about the writer being "chosen" despite the cited source not saying that at all. That's why I deleted that. You restored it, you're now attesting to its veracity. Read the source and see if what you're standing behind is actually true. Barsoomian (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bars.(what!!!!?) Unless it's CNN, e.g. whom I can trust with 'sources' we should refrain from the directors and writer speculation. The cast is interested in returning, but the other stuff is blogs, etc. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that Disney have only just bought the rights. LucasFilm could have been approaching people for months. CNN should defo be kept. Other sources should be suitably discussed, not just blanked out. MisterShiney    ✉    21:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You still insist that "Michael Arndt had been chosen to write the screenplay" despite the source NOT SAYING THAT? And that a ridiculous numbers of directors have been "named" you think means anything except the entertainment press has column inches to fill and looking for an excuse to run photos of Darth Vader or Leia in a bikini? You can believe this dreck if you want, but putting it in an encyclopedia is unforgivable. Barsoomian (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been confirmed by Entertainment Weekly. I'll add the source. Psychonavigation (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Jedi Insider.com
So I just noticed an edit by an IP user about Fisher and Hamill appearing in the next film. I was going to revert it as I wasnt sure of the reliability of the source. But decided to open it up to discussion. MisterShiney   ✉    22:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not something new - the section already covers the Hollywood Insider report, only the actual report only mentions the characters will return, not the actors. So it's properly deleted, as I just noticed it's been done. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 23:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Spoiler News Article Concerning New Trillogy Characters
First let me say that this may entirely not be legit. I'm not sure, but I thought I'd toss it on the talk page as a resource to either confirm or deny. Also, if it wasn't obvious from my heading the link should be considered a spoiler. You have been warned. Express.co.uk article concerning new trilogy characters. I'm not sure how much I should say in the talk page, but I'll let the seasoned Wookieepedia-ers take it from here. Again, I have no idea if this is legit or not, and I'm not sure about your standards/methods of determining such. --173.25.106.89 (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I really really hope other editors here take a "this is just a rumor from an unspecified source" approach with the Express.co.uk article. Disney's films will probably overturn some non-movie canon with their new movies, but any sequels with Vader in them (not Anakin's ghost, but Vader) would completely contradict the ending of RotJ.  Disney's not stupid, they would fire anyone that incompetent.
 * Given the impossibility of the claim, and the lack of ID on the source, I cannot allow that article to be called a reliable source and will remove any attempt to include it in our article. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It definitely is speculation. The article is pretty clear about that. It's not a leak from within Lucasfilm or Disney. As for resurrecting Vader, well, I would never say never. They brought back Darth Maul into the cartoon series. At any rate, at this point, anything like that would not be announced and would not be leaked, either. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 06:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It would still not make that much sense since unlike Vader Maul was still a villain after he "died" and I see little reason why Anakin would decided to come back under his evil Darth Vader Persona. Also in Return of the Jedi Anakin's ghost appears meaning that Lucas clearly meant for him to be dead. As mentioned earlier I can't see Disney being dumb enough to make a change to the official canon of that magnitude. Seriously, the only way I can see this being even remotely plausible would be if a new villain decided to take on the mantle of Darth Vader trying to gain prestige, like the way Jason Macendale tried to take over as the Hobgoblin.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as this thread is taking on more of a forum like discussion, I'll throw in my two cents with, dont forget that we have established in the Star Wars verse that people can be cloned. No reason (will suck though) that Vader could be cloned. But one thing I will add that EVERY book/comic to come out has been signed off by Lucas as cannon. Nothing got published under the Star Wars without his say so and him signing off on it. Which would make it all cannon. Hopefully this will mean that they will either 1)Find a nice trilogy to turn into what we all hope will be some awesome films or 2) They will find a completely new series that will fit into the overall cannon.  MisterShiney    ✉    08:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * His "signing off" is more of rubber stamping, and he has overturned EU canon with new movies. Splinter of the Mind's Eye is one such work, IIRC.
 * Without forum like discussion, I still have to say that without original research of calling in EU materials, and with the source amounting to nothing more than anonymous rumors, we cannot safely and reliably include that statement. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's what I meant. He signs it off as cannon, which is official until he changes his mind. Lets face it, he wrote it. He can do what he darn well pleases lol. Well...till Disney bought it. MisterShiney    ✉    20:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion nomination
The article should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. Most of the content of the article is speculation. Most of the verifiable content is related to predictions and speculation. It is not certain the movies will ever be made, future events are just speculation and the article contains too much original research. Wikipedia is not a collection of rumors. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You've failed to read WP:CRYSTAL in its entirety, specifically As you can see, if the sequel trilogy had been made, it would merit an article, so we can report on the proposals and how likely development of them will be. For comparison, see Category:Cancelled projects and events, which shows we do record similar things and some of them are of no great note, for example, If I Did It. Hiding T 13:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted the attempted AFD as incomplete, as nothing else was done besides copy an old AFD template to the article itself. If the IP user genuinely wants to file an AFD on the article, please ask for an AFD-experienced user to file the AFD on your behalf. (While I am an experienced user, I am AFD-deficient!) - BilCat (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The AfD for the Episode VII article ended with a redirect to this article. The eds. were fairly unanimous that the topic belonged in Wikipedia. Overwhelmingly it was between redirect or keep, not outright delete. The content was moved here and integrated into this article. The trilogy is active at this point. I could see the point before the Disney purchase of the franchise, when Lucas was denying it all, but not now. It would be very disappointing to go through that again. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 17:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My view is that even after a contract signed it could be just a speculation (o.k., official speculation). Until a script is not written, actors not gave their consent, the filmmaking process not yet started - it's just a speculation. It could be no film if something will go wrong. We need a warning template of some kind in the article. The deletion is opposed by me though. --109.206.133.206 (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That would not be speculation, while it is true that the film can be cancelled the fact that the film was announced for production is a fact not speculation regardless of whether or not the film is ever released.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

History
This article seems very sloppy and without direction. The title of this article is "Star Wars sequel trilogy" yet seems to concern itself very little with the actual upcoming films and more with their long rumored and failed production history. The actual films in production will very likely have little to do with the 9 or 12 film saga originally talked about by George Lucas in the early 80's. What is the point of dedicating so much of this article to them? I think the History section should be condensed considerably on this page to redirect attention to what is actually known about the upcoming Disney Trilogy. The extensive History portion of the page should be either split into a new page titled History of the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy or in a new page called Star Wars Saga Production History. There is a "Production History" section on Star Wars that could be moved to help condense that page as well. Eric Ando (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to keep it as it is. Eventually when the 3 films are released, they will have their own article like that of the The Lord of the Rings (film series) and The Hobbit (film series) and this one will just become history of the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy or something to that effect.  MisterShiney    ✉    07:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That seems to be an argument for creating the Star Wars Episode VII page then. Eric Ando (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when they have started to do stuff with it. They havn't even chosen a writer and stuff yet. I don't know what the requirements are for a film page to be created, but I am sure that once they have been met it will be created. MisterShiney    ✉    11:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Director
J.J. Abrams Nearing Deal to Direct  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.226.172 (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The Wrap was the first to report today that JJ Abrams would direct, but neither he, Lucasfilm nor their representatives have confirmed this news. Primogen (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I changed the wording to add the date and "it was reported" to clarify this has not been confirmed. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Official statement, J.J Abrams on to direct: http://starwars.com/news/star-wars-is-being-kick-started-with-dynamite-jj-abrams-to-direct-star-wars-episode-vii.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.164.133.12 (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Not Leia
The article mentions that Leia is not Luke's sister. That is total bullshit. Episode III shows Luke and Leia, not Luke and Marge Simpson. In RotJ Obi-Wan further confirms Leia as Luke's sister. If Leia is not Luke's sister, then ALL of Expanded Universe will be RETCONED!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.252.58 (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you actually read the article, you would know that introducing another character as Luke's sister in Episode VIII was a very early story idea that predated Return of the Jedi. It's true that the entire expanded universe is being trashed, but that has nothing to do with whether Leia is Luke's sister. —Flax5 15:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not just the EU that is being trashed, but the movies as well (specifically episodes III & VI!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.227.253 (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is true, you really have no clue. THE NEW FILMS ARE NOT CHANGING THAT LEIA IS LUKE'S SISTER! oknazevad (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode VII Article
I think that everyone can aggree that at some point there will be a page. It might be a good idea to create one in the incubator, and continue to develop it until there is enough for a full article. I think that that would help to create a great article. - Dracuns (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For clarification can we establish exactly what criteria need to be met to justify creation of the article? It's confirmed by the studio and in active production. It has an official producer, writer and director. Seems like an awful lot of confirmation on probably the most prominent movie under current production. What else needs to be confirmed for the page to get created? Eric Ando (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think its not a case of not having enough properly sourced information to justify it having an article to itself. I am sure when such information appears, then it will be created. MisterShiney    ✉    00:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The criteria under the film project is expressed at WP:NFILM. Basically, a 'film' article can be created without opposition when the production starts filming. (I wonder what we will call it when film is obsolete?) Until then, you can create an article if there is consensus that a stand-alone article is the best place for it. Basically, justify it to the editors of Wikipedia. The 'keepers' of the articles are quite ready to propose an article for deletion nowadays. Alaney2k (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation #62 - link does not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.149.84 (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Outline of film release dates to be added?
Disney intend to release a Star Wars film every year, alternating between the main sequence and films that focus on specific characters, as according to a reputable source;

http://collider.com/star-wars-movies-every-year-2015-disney/

This should definitely be worked through the article, I think. If anyone agrees, and is more accustomed at adding to Wiki pages, would they mind? (Zedell (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC))


 * What do you mean? This is already covered in the article.  It seems too early to go into more detail now.  More details can be added after they are provided in reliable sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So it is. I supposed it to be in a different segment, and so did not read further. My bad. (Zedell (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC))

Distributor
All right, why should I have to prove that Disney's distribution arm Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures will be the distributor instead of the Disney's film production unit, Walt Disney Pictures? Both unit's article are full of sources as to what each does. Spshu (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Until there is an announcement as to who the distributor will be, it seems to me that writing who the distributor will be is guesswork, speculation and crystal ball gazing. It may be true that in the past all films produced by Walt Disney Pictures have been distributed by Buena Vista, by Walt Disney Pictures, or by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, but until there is an announcement, the future is both unknown and unannounced.  Wouldn't it be better to leave distributor blank until there's an announcement? NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't crystal ball gazing, Disney has only one distribution arm (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, formerly Buena Vista Distrbution) now with an additional distribution label, Touchstone. So Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (WDSMP) or Touchstone are the only options with using WDSMP now would still refer to a future use of Touchstone as it is only a label of WDSMP. As Disney sure didn't plan on letting Fox be the distributor. As why would the production division be doing the distribution (ie. read the two articles: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures & Walt Disney Pictures)? Spshu (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Disney does have only one distribution arm, but it has two major distribution labels; Walt Disney Pictures and Touchstone Pictures, both produce and distribute their own films (although Touchstone's production capacity has been reduced since the Dreamworks deal). Walt Disney Pictures isn't just a production company, it is a banner; a fact that's highlighted by its website and its distribution of both Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios films, which are productions made by those individual studios and then distributed under the Walt Disney Pictures banner. Another user had previously exemplified that here. Using Pixar as an example, whose films are marketed as Disney•Pixar, Lucasfilm's films will be getting a similar branding (Disney | Lucasfilm) as evidenced by the primary source. That aside, I agree with NoMatterTryAgain that it should be left well enough alone until there's more information to extract. ~ Jedi94  ( talk ) 21:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. We wouldn't want this encyclopedic article to resemble a hodgepodge of collected tidbits. --89.0.228.12 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We only have seperate article for the distrbution arm and the production arm because the distribution used to be fully seperate as the Buena Vista Distribution Co. was for a long while incorporated. But currently these units use the SAME NAME: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (live-action) & Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures: "Industry: Live-Action Film Production"  and Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Inc.; "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Inc. operates as a motion picture and television feature distribution company. The company was formerly known as Buena Vista Pictures Distribution, Inc."  Disney Pictures for the production arm is using the common name while the distribution arm is using the full name.  Touchstone doesn't produce its own movies per Touchstone Pictures: "Industry: Film Distribution".  I don't know why I have to keep on correcting you about basic facts that you keep on messing up, Jedi94.
 * "Lucasfilm's films will be getting a similar branding (Disney | Lucasfilm) as evidenced by the primary source." How don't you know that is just short hand for Lucasfilm banner being released via Disney? Jedi94, you are trying to split "hairs" that don't need spliting. Spshu (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's as though you just skimmed when you read my comment. Touchstone has always released its own in-house movies since the 1980s. That's why it was created; to produce less family-friendly material for film audiences, not to distribute films from third-party studios. But then in 2006, Touchstone's film output was significantly reduced until finally, in 2011, it was relegated to just a distribution label for DreamWorks' films. That's when this source (Touchstone Pictures) becomes relevant. That's what I said in my last comment. You're manipulating that same source to make it seem as though it represents Touchstone's manner of business since Day 1 of operation. Businesses change the nature of their business all the time. What they're doing today might not always be what they've been doing nearly 20 years ago.
 * However, let's get back to the real subject here; the Disney|Lucasfilm banner debacle. Now, are you serious Spshu? Released "via Disney"? It's a part of the Walt Disney Studios now. Remember, that's what you vindicated here. It's not the same situation as Marvel Studios (which you uphold is not part of the studio structure). In that case, Marvel Studios only affiliates with the WDS when it comes to distribution and marketing, and then releases its films via the WDS when the time comes. Lucasfilm isn't like that, because it's already in the WDS fold. How do I know that it isn't "just short hand"? Easy, because I don't subscribe to original research, I leverage verifiable sources in arguments. Disney is going to double-brand Star Wars from now on, a fact, that is easily proven by the firsthand source I've already given and by this other one, which states word for word; "For the release of Star Wars: Episode VII, Lucasfilm will be co-branded with Disney much similar to that of Pixar." And anybody who is familiar with Pixar's films knows that they've all been released by WDSMP under the Walt Disney Pictures banner. ~ Jedi94  ( talk ) 17:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure that I have made my point clearly enough so I will try again: the distribution of future Star Wars films is a future event.  For Episode VII, it will not happen for about 2 years on current schedules.  Therefore, naming any company as distributor while there has yet to be any announcement of distributor is all speculation - for example, we do not know whether Disney will create some new entity to distribute the film.  We know Disney-Lucasfilm has been announced as the producer and/or studio for the film. Therefore it is encyclopaedic to report that fact. But no distributor has been announced, so basing a statement on past events (who distributed what films in the past) is not factual or encyclopaedic.  There is no public knowledge about who will distribute the film, it is all supposition and assumption based on the past. NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur. It is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH unless there are notable reliable sources that have made speculation. Even then the best we could do would be to quote their speculation. There is no urgency to include this information. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with that statement; it's very much like what I, NoMatterTryAgain and the IP user have previously said. Regardless of what we can prove and disprove, (which I believe we have, to a certain degree) we shouldn't quibble about it. Just add it in later when the time is right (possibly when Episode VII receives its own page). ~ Jedi94  ( talk ) 22:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "It's as though you just skimmed when you read my comment. Touchstone has always released its own in-house movies since the 1980s. That's why it was created; to produce less family-friendly material for film audiences, not to distribute films from third-party studios. But then in 2006, Touchstone's film output was significantly reduced until finally, in 2011, it was relegated to just a distribution label for DreamWorks' films."
 * Your are the one that is just skimming my comment. Thanks for proving MY POINT that Touchstone doesn't NOT like you state: "... Walt Disney Pictures and Touchstone Pictures, both produce and distribute their own films ..." I did not just skim your comment and that is the problem that I find our errors in logic, so quit with the false attacks. You are the one pretending that Touchstone still exists as a movie making unit which I debunked. Touchstone is a distribution label just for those movies with rating inappropriate for the Disney Studios Motion Pictures label but made by Disney Studios Motion Pictures or those released by DreamWorks.
 * You do subscribe to original research since I recently reversed edit that you have made with out sourcing and you also used original research in the Disney Enterprise (DE) issue to say that Disney Enterprises DBA WD Studios, which you yourself now reject and reject the LA Times source that states DE includes all Pre-1996 units.
 * "the real subject here; the Disney|Lucasfilm banner debacle." Not it isn't the issue, indicating that the production arm is the distributor of the movie instead of the distribution arm. How does wikilink to the right article a matter of original research?
 * Speculation now that possible a different unit would be created after Disney had consolidated distribution into one US unit is original research heck that is "crystal balling" greater than assuming that the current distribution arm will distribute the movie. If its such a problem then why does the article even claim that the movie is "...to be released by Disney..." at all? Given that "released" means basically "distribution". Spshu (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I argued in my last Touchstone comment by saying that it began as a production label and then was gradually "relegated" into a distribution label. I don't see how that even possibly factors out into me stating that it's still a production label. I also don't see why you had to bold the phrase "has always released" since I was speaking in the past, not present nor future tense. I was emulating past events. And of course I "now reject" that particular edit. Why? Because I realized after I made it, that it was original research! Editors always make mistakes. That's why I haven't added it back in again after their reversions. That said, I ask that we quit this ridiculous back-and-forth arguing and advance the issue into resolution, which appears to have already been agreed upon by the other editors. ~ Jedi94  ( talk ) 16:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If Studio A releases 1000 movies using distributor B, we still cannot say that that will be the distributor for movie 1001 without a source saying so. We are an encyclopedia. We deal in sourced facts. Extremely logical original research is still original research. Things change. They could re-org, they could make a deal, someone could get sued, they could go bankrupt. We include information when it is a verifiable fact, not before. If you can find someone discussing the movie relationship and saying "All future movies will be distributed using X" we could include that statement, and let the reader infer that #1001 will be that distributor as well, but we still cannot say it as a fact. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, source that Disney will be distributing Star Wars: "Disney will own and release future films in the Star Wars series ...". So why again we can not list the distribution division over the production division as the distributor? Spshu (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the source does not say so? what is the rush to add this information?Gaijin42 (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Episode VII page of its own - proposal
Could editors please signal whether they think it is time for a separate Star Wars Episode VII page?

I believe it is, for the following reasons:
 * there appear to be regular information releases from Lucasfilm about the film
 * most edits on the sequel trilogy page relate to episode VII
 * no-one seems to be in any doubt that episode VII is going to get made
 * there is now an infobox on the sequel trilogy page for episode VII only, which doesn't really belong on the sequel trilogy page
 * the earliest page for Episode III was created in 2002 (see ) - three years before that film's release.

If there is consensus, detailed episode VII material can be moved to an episode VII page, leaving a summary on this sequel trilogy page. Other adjustments can be made as necessary.

Please signal below whether you agree or disagree to the use of a separate Star Wars Episode VII page.

NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. Eric Ando (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal. ~ Jedi94  ( talk ) 16:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I also support the proposal. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine with this, but recommend a "Development of" prefix for the article title, like at Development of Jurassic Park 4. We should not treat it as a film article just yet—no film infobox, no film-related categories. It is just a historical compilation of news coverage at this point. Basically Development of Star Wars Episode VII. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. I'm actually surprised it has not already been made a separate article. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Now that a separate page has been launched, could someone with stronger Wiki-fu than I make sure that wikipedia searches for "Star Wars 7" (and possibly similar) are redirected to the propper page (instead of the 'Star Wars sequel trilogy' page)? Thanks. Vithar Alderland (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Order of episodes
Episode IX is listed as released before VIII? Also, it says it will be followed by XII? If there's ever going to be a XII, what happened to X and XI? Gusogun (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing with the books?

 * I had the impression that Lucas was planning film episodes 7 8 9 from the beginning, but the timeline after Return of the Jedi was in the meantime so completely settled by a long succession of Star Wars story books that any movies set after Return of the Jedi would either have to follow the books or contradict the books. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Stand alone films
In the section about stand alone films it says that the release dates have not yet been announced, however further down in the same section it contradicts this by stating that the first one comes out on December 16, 2016. I'd clean this up myself but I'm not very good with words 142.165.250.107 (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal - new page for stand-alone films?
Back when it was all somewhat speculative, I suspect it didn't matter too much that sequel trilogy films were discussed on this page along with stand-alone films.

However, now that details of both sequel trilogy and stand-alone films are becoming more and more concrete, wouldn't it make sense to split them out, as this page really isn't only about sequel trilogy films any more and there's no other page for info about stand-alone films?

Alternatively this page's name could be changed to Star Wars sequel trilogy and other planned films or Star Wars planned films or something.

Editors' views are welcomed below.

NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, right now this article is pretty much "Star Wars planned films". Not sure if that would be a good article.  I dunno, I haven't any solidified opinion on this matter, but you bring up good pointsYodaFan67 (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing cast/Lucas' involvement
Nowhere in the article does it mention ANY of the new cast members except at the beginging with Daisy Ridley and in the Episode 8 section about Oscar Isaac returning. I keep including the new cast (Boyega, Ridley, Driver, Isaac) along with screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan, who of course co-wrote Empire and Jedi, but it keeps being removed.

The article also twice mentions George Lucas is a creative consultant for Episode 7, a label early on he might of had before Kasdan was brought in to write the official screenplay with Abrams. A creative consultant is someone (this according to Wikipedia) "is a label given to screenwriters who have "doctored" a movie screenplay. It is often given by producers in lieu of official credit" Disney already confirmed they turned down the screenplay Lucas wrote and nothing will be used from it. Furthermore...Lucas' rep in December said "He ideally would love not to see any footage until he walks into the theater next December. He has never been able to be surprised by a Star Wars film before and he said he was looking forward to it." Abrams has also asked for Lucas' advice but Lucas has informed him that he wants to know nothing. Hard to be a creative consultant when you don't even want to refuse to see any footage of the movie or know anything about it. Jason1978 (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that missing info should be added along with supporting sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

www.moviecastingcall.org?
Citation #50 links to a site called http://www.moviecastingcall.org/2015/10/disney-talent-search-for-star-wars-episode-viii-lead-roles.html. This is a blog and not an official Disney or Lucasfilm source. Other blogs are claiming Lucasfilm denies this is an official casting call sheet. Can anyone confirm the veracity of this source? If not, I think it should be pulled until official sources can be found. Codymr (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are two of many that say the link above is a fabrication... Generally I guess this is why blogs, of an kind, are not considered reliable or encyclopaedic:

http://starwarsaficionado.blogspot.ca/2015/09/episode-viii-han-solo-returns.html

http://furiousfanboys.com/2015/07/that-episode-viii-casting-info-site-isnt-real-again/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codymr (talk • contribs) 09:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Anthology films
The Star Wars anthology films are distinct from the sequel trilogy, and I think we should split the content into its own article. This way, all related content can be grouped under an identifiable article title. Films in production can be summarized in that article, and coverage of films in development can be included in it until filming starts to warrant a stand-alone article. Let me know if you have any comments about this suggestion. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I created a few redirects that can be the place for such an article. I figured at the time that a stand-alone article like you're suggesting would be necessary, but that there wasn't enough known at the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. We can update the redirects. If there is no disagreement about forking the content, I can create the new article in the near future and will provide a link to it for your feedback. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should start with a sandbox version to be sure people agree with the forking. It could be that consensus says to wait until Rogue One comes out, or until more info is confirmed on the second Anthology film. Also, should the page be at Star Wars Anthology? Star Wars Anthology films? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can start a draft to show what it can look like. For the name, I am not seeing "Anthology" being used in an official capacity, especially with Rogue One having the new subtitle A Star Wars Story. It may be that we keep it lowercase, being Star Wars anthology films until we see an official (and commonly accepted) grouping being used. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought they were still officially being referred to as "anthology" films. I had also put a redirect at Star Wars stand-alone films. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The official website does write "Star Wars Anthology Series" here, so perhaps we can use that. I am not sure if it has caught on in reliable sources, though. I've also seen the films being called spin-offs, so that might be another redirect to do. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The article announcing Rogue One's cast has the series titled as "Star Wars stories". The Anthology series category and all other content regarding the spin-off films was written prior to that article and hasn't been updated since. In the promotional video for Star Wars Launch Bay, Kiri Hart refers to the series as "the Star Wars stories" and the "A Star Wars Story" logo appears alone onscreen before cutting to her. I'm guessing it's SWS now, but that much is OR. I've seen a few other articles call them by that title, though most just call them spin-offs since they don't know what to call them.--Bobit13 05:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree we can create a new article for the Rouge series, but until that page is created the information on that series should remain here. And this article should link to the new article. Rlendog (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This page is about the sequel trilogy, not the anthology films. The information on the anthology films belongs on the main Star Wars page (where it is now) until there is a separate article for them to go to. Once that split is made, then that page should link to the new article, not this one. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That would have been good to mention when you removed the Anthology text. I just changed Star Wars stand-alone films to redirect to Star Wars. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is the link from this page to the anthology series? Since the sequel series came to Disney in the same package as the anthology series, and the films are intended to alternate years going forward, these are not entirely unrelated entities. Rlendog (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, this page is about the sequel trilogy only. That is why it is called Star Wars sequel trilogy, not Future Star Wars films or something like that. The connection between the sequel trilogy and the anthology films is that they both come under Star Wars, which is why the main Star Wars page is where all the information should go. Since the sequel trilogy information has clearly been split off to this page, that means that the main page should link here. When an anthology page is split off, the main page should link to that as well. If you look at it as the two being "not entirely unrelated", then you could argue for having a see also link at the bottom of the page (once there is an anthology page to link to) but I don't think that will be necessary since it will already be linked to in the Star Wars navbox below. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

New Page for Episode 8? too early?
Is it too early to create the page for episode 8 and 9?Winterysteppe (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NFF we have to wait until a film starts principal production before we create an article for it. Although some filming has already taken place for episode 8, principal photography has not actually begun. Once it has, we can go ahead and create a page for it, and will do the same once 9 begins principal photography after that. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. late in seeing this but thanks for telling me. Winterysteppe (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a draft copy at Draft:Star Wars: Episode VIII. That can be copied over whenever they start filming in January. Alaney2k (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Dubious - Harrison Ford in Episode VIII?
Though the sourced statement by Kathleen Kennedy appears to "confirm" Harrison Ford will return in Episode VIII (he was at the European premiere), the fact that his character Han Solo dies in The Force Awakens appears to contradict her statement. Will he return as, say, Han's twin brother? Or did Han clone himself and send the clone to meet Kylo Ren, quite possibly suspecting Ren would try to kill him? Or was Han actually a Jedi all along (despite claiming not to believe in all that stuff) and will appear as a Force ghost, a la Obi-Wan & Anakin? --RBBrittain (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Or did another editor erroneously delete Mark Hamill instead of Ford? Hamill was also in London, and it is almost certain he will return as Luke Skywalker in Episode VIII. --RBBrittain (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I now see that Hamill was confirmed in an earlier reference. In checking earlier edits, I see someone else tried to delete Ford's name but was reverted; my "dubious" tag is more appropriate as Kennedy's statement does appear to include Ford, even though that seems contrary to the current movie's plot. Perhaps she intentionally included him to avoid a spoiler? --RBBrittain (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It is entirely possible, of course, that Harrison Ford appears as Han in either flashbacks, archival footage or as a Force ghost, or who knows, perhaps the character turns out to miraculously be alive in a big reveal. At any rate, my two cents is that perhaps the list of actors shouldn't be actually put in there until Kennedy or someone else actually announces their full names. At the moment, we have Kennedy's statement that the full cast "will be in it", and maybe that's all the article should mention, that statement, without interpreting it at this point? Echoedmyron (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The day after your suggestion, an IPv6 editor deleted Ford's name from the list (despite my earlier suggestion that the "dubious" tag was more appropriate). Still, your idea made sense; thus I deleted all the names as well as the actual quote, leaving only the statement that the entire cast will return. That leaves to the reader any interpretation of her remark. --RBBrittain (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016
Star Wars Episode VIII's release date has been delayed to December 15th 2017. So the information is out of date. Source

176.151.236.11 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Thanks! /wiae   /tlk  15:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Writing credits: '&' and 'and'
As a general FYI for contributors of this article (and for use on other film related articles), please read this article to see why '&' and 'and' are different and important to be distinguished. MOS:AMP does not apply in this instance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks you. That's all I asked for. Carry on. - the WOLF  child  04:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Credits
''et. al - Considering how often these names are being changed, (like here) does anyone have actual source to say just which are "correct" and which aren't? - the WOLF  child '' 04:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * How about official?. LLArrow (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I was about to say 'great, why didn't add that to your edit'? But then, just for the heck of it, I had a look at that link and all it says is: This page is not fully armed and operational, so it's probably a good thing you didn't add it, 'cuz someone would then have to add a dead link tag. You have any other sources? - the WOLF  child  08:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Works fine for me. Must be on your end. LLArrow (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Really? It doesn't come up with a big '404' message? (it does for me, with the DeathStar as the '0'). It still has all the info for you? Ok, but you still haven't said why you didn't add the source with your edit... - the WOLF  child  09:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The link above has an extra | at the end, but it did not work for me after removing that. Then I searched for the Episode VIII and found the same link and it works (for now), strange. The news release is from Jan. 20, 2016. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fnlayson was correct, you added a '|' between the url and the word 'official' when only a space was required, so it thought that the '|' was part of the url. Anyway, the source only lists Kennedy snd Bergman as producers. The rest are executive producers and do not belong in the overview table as if they were producers (two completely different roles). - adamstom97 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright, sorry, jeez you'd think I committed a murder. And yes they do belong in the box because films are not like TV where producers and executive producers get their own credit line, they must share. While they are different positions, they still belong under the same umbrella. LLArrow (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No one is treating you like a "murderer". We all just want to ensure that all content is properly sourced, and that these articles contain the correct info in the correct places. With that said, your comment; "And yes they do belong in the box because films are not like TV where producers and executive producers get their own credit line, they must share." is according to... what? WP:MOSFILM? WP:TABLE? Could you clarify that for us? And, you still haven't told us why you didn't add your source to your edit. Thanks. - the WOLF  child  01:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Life's to short for this type of strife, unnecessary. I'm out, you guys do what you see fit. LLArrow (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Strife"? Oh well, Wikipedia isn't for everyone. But if you decide to return, I'm sure the project would welcome your contributions. Good luck in your future endeavours. - the WOLF  child  03:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Episode VII
I'm going to make this simple, since you obviously completely ignored the discussion we had at my talk page. This is not your article. You do not WP:OWN it. You don't get to ignore what other editors are saying and just readd material that you believe should be there. The alternate title for the Force Awakens was decided in an RfC to be appropriate for the lead of that article, and that article only. Extending it out now to include at a short summary of the Force Awakens, as if it is one of the major aspects of the film like the plot, cast, production, and box office, goes completely against WP:UNDUE. Maybe the community doesn't agree with that, but it isn't up to you to decide whether that is the case or not. I suggest you use some manners, revert your own edit, and discuss the issue properly here so that other editors can have a say. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Calm down, it's just a Wikipedia article. If you're going to allow such a minor issue upset you so much, perhaps you should step away take a break from the project for awhile. - the WOLF  child  22:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Very well, I'll be the grown up for you.


 * You were all involved, among many others, in the RfC over at Star Wars: The Force Awakens, so I was hoping you could contribute to this discussion as well. The above user believes that the alternate title Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens belongs at this article as well, saying that

"what the RfC, and therefore the community, said was that "Episode VII" needs to be somehow linked to the film's title, if it is not to be included in the actual page title. Many of us felt that would help avoid some confusion and the constant editing that occurring at the TS:TFA article to include "Episode VII". We added it as an "aka" note in the lead and it solved the problem. I see a similar problem here and I am simply applying the solution that worked there. Like I said, it's an improvement."


 * I don't feel that is the case, given that the RfC actually says

"There is consensus to include "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens" as an alternate title in the lede of the article [Star Wars: The Force Awakens]."


 * As I say above, I feel that since we only agreed to use the alternate title once in the entire article, using it in a short summary like the one in this article is giving WP:UNDUE weight to it. Thewolfchild obviously disagrees, and decided that rather than finishing the discussion they began at my talk page, they would just readd the alternate title here because they wanted to. And when I, rather than reverting again and starting an edit war, started this discussion here, they gave the above comment of "Calm down, it's just a Wikipedia article. If you're going to allow such a minor issue upset you so much, perhaps you should step away take a break from the project for awhile."


 * From what I saw reading back through the RfC, not to mention how this editor talked to me over at my talk page, it seems to me that Thewolfchild has a penchant for snarky, sarcastic, and unhelpful comments that aren't conducive to a healthy discussion, so I am hoping that at least some of you editors have a more constructive opinion on this matter so we can deal with this and move on. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't really have a preference for its inclusion (or lack thereof) within this article. All that I have really been concerned with is the lead for The Force Awakens including the full title. May the force be with you both and anyone else who comments here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with Adamstorm. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment For what it's worth: I would !vote for as it is conveyed here (current version), where Episode VII is mentioned in the text body but not in the section titles or table. Why? I think that probably gives enough weight to the alternate title.  --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 23:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Personal preference: no, not in the prose. I'd make it a footnote, such as:
 * The Force Awakens, the first film in the trilogy, takes place ...
 * Note "styled" rather than "titled"—per my arguments at the RfC, I remain utterly convinced that this was not ever presented as a title. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 23:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That could work too. It doesn't matter to me where it's mentioned. - the WOLF  child  23:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I could see that as a good alternative. It seems to give due weight, but will also hopefully satisfy those who keep on readding it here. I do think we should use the same wording as the other article does, since everyone has already agreed on that:
 * The Force Awakens, the first film in the trilogy, takes place ...
 * - adamstom97 (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not argue with that. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage  00:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - adamstom97 (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not argue with that. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage  00:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * - So, you basically pinged everyone who !voted against inclusion of "Episode VII" in the RfC... very "grown up". Why not ping everyone? Don't trouble yourself, I got it..., , , , , , , , , , , , , , . - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  00:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What? I just pinged the main editors that I could see. I was going to ping everyone but there were just too many and a lot of the contributers there were just dropping a brief note of opposition or support. I'm sorry if my grabbing of the major names I saw didn't end up with the people you wanted (even though of those who have commented here so far, only one has agreed with me, as if I didn't just choose editors I thought would support me...). And I find the statement "Don't trouble yourself, I got it", another example of your now signature snark, to be particularly amusing given you were the one trying to avoid having this discussion in the first place. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is somewhat an issue to only ping those who were in the oppose side, which was listed first in the RFC. So, for future reference, if your aren't going to ping everyone, don't ping anyone at all, as it just looks bad, even if it's only motivated by a lack of desire. It just makes you look bad.
 * As for the matter at hand, putting a footnote reading "also known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens" seems a simple solution. And yes, it should have the same wording as the film's article, being decided by a month-long RFC and all. oknazevad (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * - You're still upset I see. Why don't you stop going on and on (and on) about me and just focus on the subject at hand? There were no specific editors that I "wanted" or didn't want. You started with the selectively pinging of a handful of editors from the RfC (that you clearly "wanted"), I just simply notified the rest. I'm fine with the notation. Why don't we just focus on that. See if anyone objects... if not, implement it and move on. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  01:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm upset! I'm upset and angry because all I want to do is edit and improve this encyclopaedia, something I usually enjoy, but instead I've had to deal with your smug and snarky attitude for days now as you pick away at me and make snide comments for no good reason! Yes, I made a mistake. I accidentally pinged editors from a single side of the RfC, and I am sorry about that. But the implication that there was any alterior motive in doing so is ridiculous! I didn't look at which side the editors supported, I just looked through the RfC looking for editors to invite here, because I was trying to help, whereas you clearly have something against me given that you obviously went looking for another reason to condemn me by checking to see who exactly I was pingin rather than just trying to fix the problem. I am not excusing the mistake I made, but I do think your actions are much more questionable than mine. And anyway, as can be clearly seen from my previous statements, the only thing I am against is your attitude and apparent belief that you can ignore everyone else. Though I stated that I thought your edit was against Wikipedia policy (which I stand by), I was clearly always open to the whole community working together to find the best solution, and as soon as another editor suggested a good, logical alternative, I agreed with them (and you), because all I want is the best possible outcome for the page. Now I can't stop you from continuing to abuse me as you have done, all I can say is that I definitely support the footnote with the same wording from the main page, and hope that everyone else comes to that conclusion as well so that this whole mess can finally be dealt with. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Stop raging at me with insults and accusations and focus on content . You gotta relax. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  02:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I've made the change since we all (thus far) are in agreement. Let us all move on. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 02:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm hoping this will suffice, but if multiple editors continue to add "Episode VII" to the table entry or somewhere else of prominence on the page then we may to re-visit the issue. Cheers. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  03:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Mind the, though ... &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage  07:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * TOE-MAY-TOE - toe-mah-toe. Let's not get nit-picky. -  the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  07:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)