Talk:Star Wars sequel trilogy/Archive 2

Production column
For the production column of the overview table, the two cells featuring "Kathleen Kennedy and Ram Bergman" were combined, something that seemed pretty sensible and efficient to me, not to mention in line with the double "Rian Johnson" cell for writing and directing as well as other similar overview tables like those at Marvel Cinematic Universe, Star Trek, and Batman in film (just a few examples). reverted this edit because "looks better". I don't think this is true, but that is beside the point; we don't choose what "looks better", we choose what is right, and I think the examples I provided, not to mention the current state of the rest of the table, show that combining these cells is the right way to go. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There... that wasn't so hard, was it? Now we just for others to comment, if you can establish consensus for the change, then so it, no big deal. Just one minor thing though; we don't choose what "looks better", we choose what is right,... no, we choose what policy, or the community says. What is "right" to is based on your opinion and a faulty understanding of WP:OSE. But anyways, give it awhile, see how it plays out... - the WOLF  child  08:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * By "right" I meant in terms of Wikipedia, not my own personal opinion; the opposite of personal aesthetic preferences. As for OSE, I did not say we should do something because other articles do it, I said we should do something that is "pretty sensible", that many other articles also happen to support. By the way, do you actually oppose this? I mean, for a legitimate reason, not just "looks better"? Because we only actually need to go through the discussion and consensus process if the material is actually contentious, not just because I reverted your unencyclopaedic edit, and you don't like me and want to screw me around. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) "...and you don't like me and want to screw me around." - Did you seriously just write that? I hate to break it to you, but I don't give a rat's ass about you. You have to stop taking things so personally. Focus on content, not contributors. It's not as if you made the change to the table in the first place, some other IP user did (feel free to look it up). I felt the table looked better before, and reverted it. It was you that reverted me. And let's not forget that you have been to this page a bah-zillion times and you never had an issue with the table as it is now... that is, not until I reverted a change to it. So if anything, I could accuse you of "screwing with me", but I won't resort to such petty personal attacks.
 * 2) So, lemme understand something; you go to the trouble of citing other tables on other pages to bolster your argument, but you "aren't" saying this table should be like those? (does that make sense to you? I hope that makes sense to you... )
 * 3) Just relax, and wait for some other input. - the WOLF  child  17:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, let me explain this again. I am not saying we should change this table to be like the tables at other pages, I am saying this table should be a certain way, and these are some other examples of where this is done, in case you think I am just making it up myself. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Give the original and prequel trilogies their own articles
You guys have gone as far as to give this new trilogy, two thirds of which hasn't even been released yet, it's own article. So why not give two the to the other two trilogies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.214.147 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. Why don't you go and create articles for the other two trilogies? Be WP:BOLD! - the WOLF  child  01:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * One good reason my friend: I don't have a Wikipedia account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.214.147 (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So get one! It's easy. - the WOLF  child  09:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * well let me tell you, I don't have it in me to create an account and besides then I have to go and source slot of that I just don't have the energy to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.62.199 (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "You don't have it in you"? It's takes about as much effort effort to create an account that it does to complain here on this talk page. Considering there have been numerous edits from your IP address, it may actually be worth your while to do so. But, if you really can't bothered giving WP:ACF a try, then you can always post your request at WP:RA... you might have more luck. (This is, of course, if you are indeed the same person. Travel often?) - the WOLF  child  04:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"trilogy"?
I have seen a lot of sources talk about this as a "sequel trilogy", but the way it is written in this article, it comes across as a synthesis of the earlier, long-since cancelled, plans by Lucas for a sequel trilogy, or a "trilogy of trilogies", with the post-Disneyquisition films of which one has been released, one is currently scheduled to be released this year, and one more scheduled to be released in 2019. But it essentially amounts to fan speculation that this is the "sequel trilogy" that was always talked about, and I've seen just as much fan speculation that there will be an Episode X, Episode XI, Episode XII, etc., etc. Neither of these is really appropriate for Wikipedia at this time, but if "sequel trilogy" is official terminology endorsed by Disney/Lucasfilm, and they have explicitly stated that there are no current plans for Episode X, this should probably be stated somewhere in the article.

Here are a couple of specific sources I found on a cursory Googling:
 * http://screencrush.com/new-star-wars-trilogy-episode-x/ (a very good analysis of the problem, IMO)
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/star-wars-9-10-disney-kathleen-kennedy-interview-a7438536.html (contains an embarrassing misprint in its lead paragraph and a dubious interpretation of some quotes from Kennedy, but technically "reliable" for the claim that at least one media outlet has speculated that there won't be an Episode X and that there was a general public perception that The Force Awakens would be the first installment in a new "trilogy")

On top of this, one of the article's current sources (: George Lucas and his original plan to create 4 trilogies of Star Wars films) explicitly contradicts the information cited to it (Lucas originally planned a [emphasis added] sequel trilogy in the mid-1970s). Wikipedia articles should take reliable sources at their word and summarize what is in them, not have things that Wikipedians want to write, and when the sources don't fit exactly just ignore those points.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars Episode IX which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Star Wars sequel trilogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001125605/http://www.moviecastingcall.org/2015/09/casting-call-for-star-wars-episode-viii-lead-role.html to http://www.moviecastingcall.org/2015/09/casting-call-for-star-wars-episode-viii-lead-role.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/10/16/ilm-london-launch-updates-on-star-wars-episode-vii-avengers-age-of-ultron
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160405135100/http://dorksideoftheforce.com/2016/03/26/star-wars-episode-viii-filming-update-luke-in-a-casino-poe-takes-charge/ to https://dorksideoftheforce.com/2016/03/26/star-wars-episode-viii-filming-update-luke-in-a-casino-poe-takes-charge/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160713174302/http://www.ibtimes.com.au/star-wars-episode-8-production-update-filming-wraps-big-party-london-cast-crew-1521570 to http://www.ibtimes.com.au/star-wars-episode-8-production-update-filming-wraps-big-party-london-cast-crew-1521570

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Star Wars sequel trilogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160405135100/http://dorksideoftheforce.com/2016/03/26/star-wars-episode-viii-filming-update-luke-in-a-casino-poe-takes-charge/ to https://dorksideoftheforce.com/2016/03/26/star-wars-episode-viii-filming-update-luke-in-a-casino-poe-takes-charge/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160713174302/http://www.ibtimes.com.au/star-wars-episode-8-production-update-filming-wraps-big-party-london-cast-crew-1521570 to http://www.ibtimes.com.au/star-wars-episode-8-production-update-filming-wraps-big-party-london-cast-crew-1521570

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Star Wars sequel trilogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101072047/http://starwarsblog.starwars.com/index.php/2012/10/30/the-long-winding-and-shapeshifting-trail-to-episodes-vii-viii-ix/ to http://starwarsblog.starwars.com/index.php/2012/10/30/the-long-winding-and-shapeshifting-trail-to-episodes-vii-viii-ix
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001125605/http://www.moviecastingcall.org/2015/09/casting-call-for-star-wars-episode-viii-lead-role.html to http://www.moviecastingcall.org/2015/09/casting-call-for-star-wars-episode-viii-lead-role.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/10/16/ilm-london-launch-updates-on-star-wars-episode-vii-avengers-age-of-ultron

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Episode IX draft
Is there a Episode IX draft?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptianGamer (talk • contribs) 01:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do, but it may be too soon to publish a Wikipedia article about it now. In this case, we should at least wait until after Star Wars VIII comes out, after which many sources will be reporting on the upcoming film. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 02:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that The Last Jedi has been released, I believe it is time to create the page for episode IX. What do you think? EdTocino1 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Typically, we don't push film pages to the mainspace until principle photography begins. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  01:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * last comment more than two months ago, perhaps IX should have its own article now...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My comment stands, typically articles aren't pushed to live until principal photog starts, and it isn't scheduled until June. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  14:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * see WP:NFF for why the draft is not in the mainspace yet, per the reasoning of . - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2018
Typo (Jhonson's instead of Johnson's) in third to last line of this section of the article. Please correct typo. 86.170.13.28 (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Good catch. That's fixed now. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Many atrocious typos
Neither of those ideas has been used within the sequel trilogy so far. Lucas additionaly opininonated:"If Id held onto the company i could have done it, and then it would have been done. Of course a lot of fans would have hated it, just like they did (with prequel trilogy film) Phantom Menace and every-thing but at least the whole story from beggining to end would be told".[42]

"every-thing"

"additionaly"

"opininonated"

"Id"

"i" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.234.53 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Besides the fact that the other two trilogies just have overviews on the Star Wars article, all the production information can go into more specific pages. There is also a discussion of a plan to create better handoff between the various SW articles at Talk:Star Wars. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding this, eh? No. This article is about the trilogy. Star Wars: The Last Jedi is about a film. How does it make sense to merge the trilogy article into the film article? Also, have a look at Spider-Man in film for how we cover films in a series. I see that you already noticed List of Star Wars films and television series and proposed that it be merged into the Star Wars article; I disagree with that as well. The Star Wars article is about the franchise and the list article would overwhelm that article. We have WP:Spinout articles for a reason. The List of Star Wars films and television series article is one example of a spinout article being needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the proposal isn't to merge the entire article to the one on TLJ. See the list of articles on this page's template. The other two trilogies don't have their own articles; they're covered by Star Wars and the List of films sections, making this article a redundancy. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * While I can understand the motivations to do so, I'm only moderately opposed. More specifically, I fear the loss of informative production information and historical decisions bearing significance in the development of the sequels as a whole - particularly with the changes to ownership as well as plot development in a notably foggy future for the universe. It seems this merge is based upon semantic patterns of the articles associated with the franchise rather than the presence and suspected (non-)usefulness of the information encompassed within.  I get the impression from the article that it mostly stays on topic (some of the detail could be reduced or merged to the respective film articles where currently marked), that is, most of the content would be best suited in an article holding this title. .digamma (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * A clearer, more explicit merger proposal at the top would really help here. I oppose any merging beyond the individual film sections. The background on trilogy needs to stay here. The article existed long before work on the movies began (c. 2005).  Shortening the film sections per WP:Summary style is fine and I tagged those sections for this already.   -Fnlayson (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The background on the various stages of the production of each trilogy is relevant to the Star Wars franchise as a whole, and can be incorporated to the overviews on that page. There is a section for original/prequel/sequel trilogy focused on just the major developments of the series as a whole, where as the List page/individual articles have more detailed info for each episode. The information has not yet all been duplicated there, but that would be implied in the merge. UpdateNerd (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Well step one is, I think, we can drop production information, etc. of the films from here. But step two, I am not sure from the proposal. I think the information presented here is notable to film history. One thing I like about Wikipedia and I think is valuable is how the various bits and pieces of a history or topic are put together into a Wikipedia article that has all of the information together. You don't see much of that in the news media anymore. This article is not perfect, but it does cover the topic. If you were talking about a 'History of Star Wars' series of articles, I think this would fit in nicely as one. There could be similar articles on the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy, if that's not too much, but I'd consider the overall history as a series. The franchise article is fairly packed with information. Merging this article into the 'List of' article would leave that one unbalanced, having too much on this trilogy. Alaney2k (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm all for an article on the 'History of 'Star Wars'. Many notes about the sequel planning are relevant to all three trilogies, so it makes sense to keep all together. I've copied over some of the information from the ST article to the "franchise" article, so you can see what that looks like at Star Wars (the main difference is less direct quotes). I think collectively we can get by without articles for each trilogy, but a real-world 'History' article would solve the disconnect between the trilogy overviews on the SW page & specific episode summaries on the List, and also allow a more expansive approach including quotations. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The Sequel Trilogy Article should be seperate to the independently produced articles for the movies. This sounds like fan bias from people who didn't like the movies trying to interfere with the page's set-up. There can be references to the trilogy's overall history in the film's development section, but it shouldn't cancel-out the article covering the sequel trilogy. With that said I'm for an article on the "History of 'Star Wars'" myself. Internet Informant (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

copyright violations?
Last edit caused a flag notice

https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Star+Wars+sequel+trilogy&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0
 * Even the tool says unlikely. The comparison just shows quotes. oknazevad (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently we have to much quote spam here ...still on copyvio list for 10 web pages...perhaps best to follow MOS:QUOTATIONS.-- Moxy 🍁 23:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your catching the offending text. Could you please provide the text (originally sourced from http://www.theforce.net/latestnews/story/gary_kurtz_reveals_original_plans_for_episodes_19_80270.asp) which I rewrote into original prose? I will be careful not to include any of the original text in the article, which you should be able to tell wasn't my addition to begin with. If that's not possible, I can start over, but would greatly appreciate this time-saving gesture. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course I do realize you are not the person who added it - the CopyPatrol report tells me who added it. I am sending you the removed version via email. Though it won't be of much use, as it is mostly copied from the source here.— Diannaa (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Canon --- or not? Or yes?
Hi

I am not enough of a fan to be able to edit this, the last two sentences in Background-->Renewed development:


 * "Only Episodes I–VI would remain canon to the franchise, along with The Clone Wars animated film and series. Most everything produced after the announcement would also be considered canon."

My problem is that it says "Only X would remain canon to the franchise [...] after the announcement would also be considered canon"

So, basically, everything is still canon? How is that notable? It's like saying:


 * "Everything before the 17th century was real in the world, along with things on the moon. Just about everything from the 17th century would also be real."

Surely the notable things are the things that AREN'T canon?? (or did someone mess up one of those sentences?)

It should more likely read something like:


 * "[The sequel trilogy/All nine films of the three trilogies] was/were once more considered to be canon, apart from X Y and Z." Chaosdruid (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)