Talk:Star Wars sequel trilogy/Archive 1

4993:

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 Knowledge 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. -

3322:"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. 2101:

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

2927:

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. ~

4468:"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." 31: 4972:- 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. - 165:

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?!?"

3937: 2442:. 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 Knowledge. The 'keepers' of the articles are quite ready to propose an article for deletion nowadays. 3667:

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. -

2951:

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.

3886: 634:, "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." 1876:

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.

1600:

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.

4917:(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. - 5046: 4724: 2699:; "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 5117: 5095: 2893:

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.

2737:) 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. 945:

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

1966:. 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. Knowledge is not a collection of rumors. -- 4500:

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

4490:

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

4362:

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

324:

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.

4174:

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

3844:

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

3794:

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

3666:

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

1856:

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.

1831:

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

1686:

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

1599:

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

1554:

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

923:

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

907:

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

330:

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.

3726:

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

3321:

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 Knowledge) "is a label given to screenwriters who have

3317:

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

2950:

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,

2756:

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

2062:

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

1875:

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

892:

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.

395:

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

293:

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

159:

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

2926:

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

2858:

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

2036:

The AfD for the Episode VII article ended with a redirect to this article. The eds. were fairly unanimous that the topic belonged in Knowledge. 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

648:

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

164:

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

4916:

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

2811:

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

2629:

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

2100:

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

944:

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

3860:

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

3828:

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

3602:

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. -

3422:

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

2598:

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

1380:

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.

952:

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

557:

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

4992:

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

2892:

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

2583:

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

2399:

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

2330:

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

2018:

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

1569:

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

1987:

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

1857:

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

1813:

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

893:

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).

4931:

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

137:

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.

540:

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.

1550:

Knowledge 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.

4213:

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.

1020:

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.

3244:

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

1458:) 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. 3267:

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?

2728:

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

1381:

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.

325:

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.

2307:

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!!!

3361:. 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. 664:

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

3845:

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?

3161:

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.

629:

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

572:

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.

331:

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.

256:

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.

2383:

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. -

2911:

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".

2904:"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? 2900:

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

1555:

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.

1239:"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." 1396:

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.

1336:

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!

1045:

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.

386:

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

4669:

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:

3643:

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.

3475:

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

2686:

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:

4367:. 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. - 1907:

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.

2170:

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.

2812:

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.

1797:

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.

3574:

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

1242:

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

4152:

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.

518: 1756:

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.

4131:

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... -

1098: 1614:

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.

462:

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 Knowledge articles about Star Wars at all.

79:

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.

832: 4256:

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;

3442:

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.

1649:

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.

3298:|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 points 4491:

gave the above comment of "Calm down, it's just a Knowledge 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."

2077:

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

5065:

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. -

1509:

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.

1450:. 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 3579:, 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 3457:

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.

1922:

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.

1236:

In this Knowledge 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:

1787:

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

3790:

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

1288:

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.--

3588:

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.

1817:

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.

346:

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.)

2885:

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

2843:

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.

558:

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"?

1268:

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

703:

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

3550:, 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. 792:

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.

3032:

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.

2414:

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.

1731:

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.

115:

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.

2511:

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. -

2037:

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.

517:

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

4382:

Calm down, it's just a Knowledge 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. -

4576:(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. 1990:

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

833:

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

3117:. 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 4325:"Strife"? Oh well, Knowledge 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. - 2487:

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;

4486:

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

2733:, 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 ( 472:

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.

2639: 770:

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?

2638:

films, which are productions made by those individual studios and then distributed under the Walt Disney Pictures banner. Another user had previously exemplified that

4523:

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

3264:

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.

289:

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:

2777:, 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 3375:

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:

2599:

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

1356:"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 3580: 2907:

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

810:

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.

3583:

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)

1069:

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.

298:

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?

2766: 2707: 2651: 2575:

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

2276: 3498:

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

4073:

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:

4260:

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.

2495:

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? (

4358:

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

2889:, Touchstone's film output was significantly reduced until finally, in 2011, it was relegated to just a distribution label for DreamWorks' films." 2231:

The Wrap was the first to report today that JJ Abrams would direct, but neither he, Lucasfilm nor their representatives have confirmed this news.

66: 4363:

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

1104:

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

1060:

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.

2740:

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

1991: 1036:

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.

399:

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.

3246: 3101: 2064: 1422: 949:

it details that Lucas fought for sequel rights. He was clearly thinking about at least three movies before the movie was released in 1977.

3921: 3118: 2285: 2214: 1967: 145: 122: 3423:

included in it until filming starts to warrant a stand-alone article. Let me know if you have any comments about this suggestion. Thanks,

3358: 2703:: "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. 2778: 2608: 2553: 2468: 2348: 2121: 2079: 1862: 1799: 1217: 1202: 1076: 967: 4077:, 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? - 1314:

According to an unnamed source close to Ford, the actor is reportedly upbeat about being cast, but is waiting on a script and director.

4939:" 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. 2315: 844: 811: 777: 743: 479: 419: 3968: 3576: 2673: 894: 2807:

event. For Episode VII, it will not happen for about 2 years on current schedules. Therefore, naming any company as distributor

2654:. That aside, I agree with NoMatterTryAgain that it should be left well enough alone until there's more information to extract. ~ 180:

So this article is imho pretty neat. Please don't attempt to delete it. If someone ever tries. You hereby have my AGAINST vote. --

4631:

Note "styled" rather than "titled"—per my arguments at the RfC, I remain utterly convinced that this was not ever presented as a

273: 229:

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.

202:

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.

2120:

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

3022:

there is now an infobox on the sequel trilogy page for episode VII only, which doesn't really belong on the sequel trilogy page

104: 4480:"There is consensus to include "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens" as an alternate title in the lede of the article ." 3571: 615:

pages. And believe me, this article has been in poor shape in the past, but most of the fancruft stuff was removed years ago.

4540: 3111: 509:

Unfortunately, I think you'll find that you're in the minority with that opinion. Only some of the information was copied to

2696: 1687:

Darth Vader or Leia in a bikini? You can believe this dreck if you want, but putting it in an encyclopedia is unforgivable.

1201:

The questions don't make sense with Lucas's answers, and Lucas's answers contradict themselves. Is this a misquote or what?

956:

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

418:

This page should be deleted. It has nothing to offer! It is about a series of flms that are evidently pure fucking fantasy!

1315: 2635: 47: 17: 3814:

instead of Ford? Hamill was also in London, and it is almost certain he will return as Luke Skywalker in Episode VIII. --

3384: 3402: 3152: 1127: 649:

opinion of dedicating a separate page to offhand comments Lucas made in interviews is what gives wikipedia a bad name. (

596: 3618: 3529: 3229: 1901: 1526: 1342: 1259: 666: 2277:

http://starwars.com/news/star-wars-is-being-kick-started-with-dynamite-jj-abrams-to-direct-star-wars-episode-vii.html

4458:, so I was hoping you could contribute to this discussion as well. The above user believes that the alternate title 1216:

Nevermind. Looking at the history, someone changed all the negatives to positives and made the exchange nonsensical.

4562: 3984: 3763: 3559: 3519: 3466: 3432: 3379: 3289: 3167: 3133: 3050: 2886: 2840: 2817: 2730: 2589: 1713: 953:

sequels saying he made them up for the press. (Interesting, though, he had been talking about them for 30 years!)

620: 608: 600: 563: 530: 366: 304: 100: 38: 3220:

was in the meantime so completely settled by a long succession of Star Wars story books that any movies set after

3917:

Star Wars Episode VIII's release date has been delayed to December 15th 2017. So the information is out of date.

3507: 3481: 1357: 673: 612: 277: 4052: 3925: 3918: 3896: 3331: 3250: 2218: 2125: 2068: 1971: 1426: 2289: 837:

Is this reference-able for the article, seems to be new information from a proven source of Lucasfilm leaks.

149: 126: 2472: 2206: 2083: 1803: 1221: 1206: 1080: 924:

something that contradicts 15 books then he'll do it, and Lucasfilm will try to fit it all together later. -

588: 3967:

As a general FYI for contributors of this article (and for use on other film related articles), please read

3892: 3753: 3712: 3214:

I had the impression that Lucas was planning film episodes 7 8 9 from the beginning, but the timeline after

3146: 2352: 2341:

It is not just the EU that is being trashed, but the movies as well (specifically episodes III & VI!!!

2319: 1866: 1322: 987: 971: 929: 848: 483: 3163: 2970:. So why again we can not list the distribution division over the production division as the distributor? 2967: 2677: 2672:

Exactly right. We wouldn't want this encyclopedic article to resemble a hodgepodge of collected tidbits. --

1794: 3528:

I thought they were still officially being referred to as "anthology" films. I had also put a redirect at

3225: 2630:

production company, it is a banner; a fact that's highlighted by its website and its distribution of both

2423: 2180: 2137: 1931: 1885: 1740: 1659: 1579: 1467: 1338: 815: 781: 747: 654: 546: 498: 423: 337: 913: 448: 5106: 5057: 4998: 4922: 4735: 4711: 4642: 4558: 4506: 4437: 4433: 4372: 4180: 3980: 3850: 3732: 3672: 3608: 3285: 3046: 2813: 2734: 2700: 2692: 2585: 1913: 1822: 1814:

completely contradict the ending of RotJ. Disney's not stupid, they would fire anyone that incompetent.

1709: 1277: 1017: 898: 616: 559: 526: 361: 299: 3359:

http://www.moviecastingcall.org/2015/10/disney-talent-search-for-star-wars-episode-viii-lead-roles.html

3199: 4815: 3866: 3834: 3819: 3800: 3743: 3390: 3006:

Could editors please signal whether they think it is time for a separate Star Wars Episode VII page?

2643: 2612: 2557: 2464: 2344: 2311: 2281: 2253:

I changed the wording to add the date and "it was reported" to clarify this has not been confirmed. -

2210: 1692: 1605: 1560: 1499: 1386: 1365: 1297: 1255: 1247: 1116: 1072: 999: 963: 872: 840: 773: 721: 475: 269: 265: 261: 141: 118: 85: 909: 444: 319: 4944: 3547: 3477: 3327: 3303: 2770: 2368: 2128:

and this one will just become history of the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy or something to that effect.

185: 5136: 5108: 5080: 5059: 5026: 5002: 4987: 4948: 4926: 4907: 4737: 4715: 4664: 4644: 4587: 4565: 4546: 4510: 4397: 4376: 4340: 4319: 4290: 4223: 4184: 4162: 4147: 4114: 4092: 4064: 4045: 4005: 3956: 3929: 3870: 3854: 3838: 3823: 3804: 3775: 3757: 3736: 3716: 3676: 3653: 3634: 3612: 3597: 3563: 3541: 3523: 3493: 3470: 3452: 3436: 3406: 3370: 3346: 3307: 3293: 3254: 3233: 3203: 3195: 3171: 3156: 3137: 3105: 3087: 3069: 3054: 2993: 2979: 2960: 2940: 2921: 2876: 2852: 2821: 2794: 2723: 2681: 2667: 2624: 2593: 2569: 2538: 2520: 2504: 2476: 2451: 2433: 2409: 2393: 2372: 2356: 2335: 2323: 2293: 2262: 2240: 2222: 2190: 2165: 2147: 2114: 2087: 2072: 2056: 2028: 2009: 1975: 1941: 1917: 1895: 1870: 1851: 1826: 1807: 1776: 1750: 1717: 1696: 1669: 1634: 1609: 1591: 1564: 1479: 1430: 1416: 1390: 1369: 1346: 1326: 1303: 1281: 1225: 1210: 1167: 1139: 1120: 1084: 1064: 1055: 1040: 1030: 1005: 975: 933: 917: 902: 881: 852: 819: 805: 785: 751: 730: 688: 658: 643: 624: 582: 567: 550: 534: 502: 487: 452: 427: 408: 371: 355: 341: 309: 246: 219: 189: 174: 166: 153: 130: 108: 89: 4839: 4831: 4799: 4749: 4583: 4534: 4158: 3771: 3749: 3708: 3630: 3537: 3489: 3448: 3394: 3362: 3342: 3216: 3097: 3065: 2989: 2956: 2848: 2530: 2516: 2496: 2447: 2405: 2258: 2236: 2161: 2110: 2050: 1845: 1770: 1628: 1410: 1353: 1318: 1161: 1135: 1051: 1026: 925: 801: 351: 5007:

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Stop raging at me with insults and accusations and

2650:, Lucasfilm's films will be getting a similar branding (Disney | Lucasfilm) as evidenced by the 2363:

It is true, you really have no clue. THE NEW FILMS ARE NOT CHANGING THAT LEIA IS LUKE'S SISTER!

1251: 707:

article, be it this one, or merged with the main article, then there shouldn't be any problem.--

2706:"Lucasfilm's films will be getting a similar branding (Disney | Lucasfilm) as evidenced by the 2490: 1900:

His "signing off" is more of rubber stamping, and he has overturned EU canon with new movies.

5123: 5067: 5013: 4974: 4894: 4651: 4384: 4353: 4327: 4315: 4277: 4264: 4219: 4134: 4110: 4079: 4060: 4032: 3992: 3649: 3593: 2576: 2416: 2389: 2173: 2130: 1994:, which shows we do record similar things and some of them are of no great note, for example, 1982: 1963: 1924: 1878: 1733: 1652: 1572: 1460: 650: 631: 542: 513:, and as to your claim that the article is orphaned, that's clearly an error on your part, as 494: 404: 333: 170: 95:

Well, in my opinion this article shouldn't even exsist. There is no sequel trilogy, and there

4310:

Life's to short for this type of strife, unnecessary. I'm out, you guys do what you see fit.

5100: 5051: 4994: 4967: 4918: 4759: 4729: 4707: 4636: 4527:

including the full title. May the force be with you both and anyone else who comments here.

4502: 4421: 4417: 4368: 4176: 3976: 3846: 3728: 3668: 3604: 3398: 3366: 3081: 2934: 2870: 2788: 2661: 2534: 2529:

So it is. I supposed it to be in a different segment, and so did not read further. My bad. (

2500: 2024: 2005: 1909: 1818: 1273: 242: 234: 215: 207: 4863: 4487: 4364: 4268: 3862: 3830: 3815: 3796: 3617:

That would have been good to mention when you removed the Anthology text. I just changed

2975: 2917: 2719: 2620: 2565: 2439: 1858: 1688: 1601: 1556: 1455: 1382: 1361: 1289: 1112: 991: 859: 708: 81: 4501:

have a more constructive opinion on this matter so we can deal with this and move on. -

4940: 4871: 4783: 4445: 3949: 3555: 3515: 3462: 3428: 3323: 3299: 3129: 3110:

Fine with this, but recommend a "Development of" prefix for the article title, like at

2908: 2749: 2364: 684: 639: 592: 578: 181: 4030:) does anyone have actual source to say just which are "correct" and which aren't? - 3385:

http://furiousfanboys.com/2015/07/that-episode-viii-casting-info-site-isnt-real-again/

2799:

I'm still not sure that I have made my point clearly enough so I will try again: the

2710:." How don't you know that is just short hand for Lucasfilm banner being released via 1988:

projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.

525:

just under three months ago. I'd lay money on the next one being closed the same way.

4847: 4823: 4807: 4775: 4578: 4528: 4441: 4429: 4425: 4359: 4154: 3767: 3723: 3626: 3533: 3485: 3444: 3338: 3093: 3061: 2985: 2952: 2844: 2512: 2443: 2401: 2254: 2232: 2157: 2106: 2040: 1835: 1760: 1618: 1494: 1490: 1441: 1400: 1151: 1131: 1061: 1047: 1037: 1022: 793: 493:

This article has already been merged. It's (in my opinion) orphaned and redundant. (

347: 858:

At this point in time, it's merely speculation which has been denied by Lucasfilm.--

5042:

I've made the change since we all (thus far) are in agreement. Let us all move on.

4879: 4311: 4215: 4171: 4106: 4056: 4018: 3645: 3589: 2758: 2385: 983: 400: 2400:

current production. What else needs to be confirmed for the page to get created?

4887: 4791: 4449: 3811: 3380:

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

3075: 2928: 2864: 2782: 2655: 2020: 2001: 1996: 1505: 238: 230: 211: 203: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2156:

That seems to be an argument for creating the Star Wars Episode VII page then.

1485:

For example, look at this rubbish I deleted that 5 minutes later was restored:

4855: 3971:

to see why '&' and 'and' are different and important to be distinguished.

2971: 2913: 2761:, I leverage verifiable sources in arguments. Disney is going to double-brand 2715: 2616: 2561: 2332: 2063:

template of some kind in the article. The deletion is opposed by me though. --

160:

you when you say that a certain director is trying to retcon the real world.

3013:

there appear to be regular information releases from Lucasfilm about the film

2984:

Because the source does not say so? what is the rush to add this information?

3944: 3658:

Again, this page is about the sequel trilogy only. That is why it is called

3622: 3551: 3511: 3458: 3424: 3145:. I'm actually surprised it has not already been made a separate article. — 3125: 2688: 2102: 680: 635: 574: 510: 2711: 4275:

haven't told us why you didn't add your source to your edit. Thanks. -

2765:

from now on, a fact, that is easily proven by the firsthand source I've

4772:"grown up". Why not ping everyone? Don't trouble yourself, I got it... 3972: 3337:

Yes, that missing info should be added along with supporting sources. -

1421:

CNN is a very reliable speculative news source as well as others ;-) --

4649:

That could work too. It doesn't matter to me where it's mentioned. -

3861:

return. That leaves to the reader any interpretation of her remark. --

3510:

until we see an official (and commonly accepted) grouping being used.

2968:"Disney will own and release future films in the Star Wars series ..." 2881:"It's as though you just skimmed when you read my comment. Touchstone 2556:

will be the distributor instead of the Disney's film production unit,

397: 4935:

As for the matter at hand, putting a footnote reading "also known as

3019:

no-one seems to be in any doubt that episode VII is going to get made

2714:? Jedi94, you are trying to split "hairs" that don't need spliting. 2552:

All right, why should I have to prove that Disney's distribution arm

360:

Ah, same issues, different story. That's why I couldn't find it. ;)

3829:

plot. Perhaps she intentionally included him to avoid a spoiler? --

3766:. That can be copied over whenever they start filming in January. 2744:

the Walt Disney Studios now. Remember, that's what you vindicated

2647: 2631: 1708:

It's been confirmed by Entertainment Weekly. I'll add the source.

2896:

You do subscribe to original research since I recently reversed

2560:? Both unit's article are full of sources as to what each does. 4474:

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

3224:

would either have to follow the books or contradict the books.

4573:

For what it's worth: I would !vote for as it is conveyed here

3880: 1451: 25: 4454:

You were all involved, among many others, in the RfC over at

4026:- Considering how often these names are being changed, (like 3546:

The official website does write "Star Wars Anthology Series"

2491:

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

1272:

mention of additional sequels, we can only mention 8 and 9.

3025:

the earliest page for Episode III was created in 2002 (see

3016:

most edits on the sequel trilogy page relate to episode VII

1183:"Q: Does that mean you won't do Episodes VII, VIII and IX? 1126:

Today a user ignored the AfD and recreated the article at

2966:

Done, source that Disney will be distributing Star Wars:

2809:

while there has yet to be any announcement of distributor

2642:. Using Pixar as an example, whose films are marketed as 4595:: no, not in the prose. I'd make it a footnote, such as: 4175:

they were producers (two completely different roles). -

2105:

that could be moved to help condense that page as well.

1795:

Express.co.uk article concerning new trilogy characters.

391:

refer to the third trilogy - and even a couple of times

5087: 4574: 4027: 3748:

Thanks. late in seeing this but thanks for telling me.

3707:

Is it too early to create the page for episode 8 and 9?

3026: 2897: 2745: 1783:

Spoiler News Article Concerning New Trillogy Characters

1728: 1109: 604: 514: 3043:

to the use of a separate Star Wars Episode VII page.

1189:

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

5113:

TOE-MAY-TOE - toe-mah-toe. Let's not get nit-picky.

2438:

The criteria under the film project is expressed at

3271:Alternatively this page's name could be changed to 2773:, which states word for word; "For the release of 1527:"Star Wars: Episode VII May Have Found Its Writer" 1198:Lucas: This is not it. This is not all there is." 3990:Thanks you. That's all I asked for. Carry on. - 2689:Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (live-action) 4676:, the first film in the trilogy, takes place ... 4605:, the first film in the trilogy, takes place ... 3273:Star Wars sequel trilogy and other planned films 4764:- So, you basically pinged everyone who !voted 3795:as a Force ghost, a la Obi-Wan & Anakin? -- 2695:: "Industry: Live-Action Film Production" and 1358:Knowledge:Deletion review#Star_Wars_Episode_VII 291: 3877:Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016 3194:going to be a XII, what happened to X and XI? 1489:In early November 2012, it was reported that 947:Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas 587:It's been called several things in the past - 3506:. It may be that we keep it lowercase, being 2275:Official statement, J.J Abrams on to direct: 8: 4462:belongs at this article as well, saying that 4075:This page is not fully armed and operational 3009:I believe it is, for the following reasons: 1525:Brodesser-Akner, Claude (November 8, 2012). 1232:Interpretation of Disney acquisition article 1180:This exchange doesn't make a lot of sense: 3186:VIII? Also, it says it will be followed by 3028:) - three years before that film's release. 888:Sequel Trilogy redundant due to the novels? 4460:Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens 4271:? Could you clarify that for us? And, you 3577:promotional video for Star Wars Launch Bay 3260:Proposal - new page for stand-alone films? 2757:hand"? Easy, because I don't subscribe to 2483:Outline of film release dates to be added? 4768:inclusion of "Episode VII" in the RfC... 3810:Or did another editor erroneously delete 2781:under the Walt Disney Pictures banner. ~ 2697:Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Inc. 294:happens to the Star Wars trio after Jedi. 4937:Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens 4695:Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens 4622:Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens 4406:Very well, I'll be the grown up for you. 4105:Works fine for me. Must be on your end. 3786:Dubious - Harrison Ford in Episode VIII? 1789:the link should be considered a spoiler. 315:Here's the relevant paragraphs from the 4686: 4613: 1517: 982:If you have content to add, as well as 4259: 4074: 3318:and Jedi, but it keeps being removed. 3002:Episode VII page of its own - proposal 1992:Category:Cancelled projects and events 1986: 1861:tried to take over as the Hobgoblin.-- 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 5114: 5092: 7: 5043: 4721: 3357:Citation #50 links to a site called 2461:Citation #62 - link does not work. 1176:Is this really what the source says? 4577: 3975:does not apply in this instance. - 3282:Editors' views are welcomed below. 2693:Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 2609:Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 2554:Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 2205:J.J. Abrams Nearing Deal to Direct 2122:The Lord of the Rings (film series) 1186:Lucas: I will do VII, VIII and IX. 607:to this title in 2007 to match the 3963:Writing credits: '&' and 'and' 3703:New Page for Episode 8? too early? 1962:The article should be deleted per 237:) 02:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Satipo 210:) 02:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Satipo 24: 3182:Episode IX is listed as released 2748:. It's not the same situation as 1832:and would not be leaked, either. 5115: 5093: 5044: 4722: 3935: 3884: 3035:Please signal below whether you 29: 3313:Missing cast/Lucas' involvement 2803:of future Star Wars films is a 990:, then by all means add them.-- 742:Knowledge was given a bad name? 3962: 3347:21:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC) 1985:in its entirety, specifically 1148:I changed it into a redirect. 428:09:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 175:02:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 1: 5137:07:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC) 5109:07:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC) 5081:03:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC) 5060:02:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC) 5027:02:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC) 5003:01:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC) 4988:01:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC) 4949:01:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC) 4927:00:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC) 4908:00:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC) 4738:00:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC) 4720:I would not argue with that. 4716:00:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC) 4665:23:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC) 4645:23:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC) 4588:23:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC) 4566:23:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC) 4547:23:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC) 4511:22:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC) 4398:22:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC) 4377:21:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC) 4341:03:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC) 4320:01:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC) 4291:01:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC) 4224:20:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC) 4185:18:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC) 4163:13:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC) 4148:09:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC) 4115:09:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC) 4093:08:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC) 4065:07:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC) 4046:04:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC) 4006:04:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC) 3985:03:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC) 3855:23:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC) 3839:17:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC) 3824:17:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC) 3805:17:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC) 3776:14:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC) 3764:Draft:Star Wars: Episode VIII 3758:14:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC) 3737:08:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC) 3717:21:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC) 3677:18:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC) 3654:18:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC) 3635:04:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC) 3613:22:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC) 3598:15:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC) 3564:22:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 3542:22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 3524:22:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 3494:22:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 3471:21:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 3453:21:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 3437:18:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 3332:02:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC) 3092:I also support the proposal. 3074:I agree with the proposal. ~ 2636:Walt Disney Animation Studios 2452:17:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 2434:00:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC) 2410:23:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC) 2394:14:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC) 2379:Star Wars Episode VII Article 2373:02:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC) 2357:17:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC) 1918:14:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC) 1896:08:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC) 1871:02:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC) 1852:06:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 1827:02:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 1808:02:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 1777:23:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC) 1751:22:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC) 1718:04:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC) 1697:03:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC) 1304:15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC) 903:15:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC) 731:20:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC) 689:22:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC) 659:22:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC) 644:16:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC) 625:16:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC) 583:16:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC) 568:16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC) 551:14:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC) 535:01:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC) 503:00:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC) 488:04:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC) 18:Talk:Star Wars sequel trilogy 4456:Star Wars: The Force Awakens 3957:15:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 3930:14:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 3294:20:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC) 3234:15:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC) 3204:13:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC) 2607:(ie. read the two articles: 2336:15:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 2324:12:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 2294:05:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC) 2263:01:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC) 2241:00:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC) 2223:23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC) 2191:11:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 2166:11:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 2148:07:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 2115:02:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 2088:04:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC) 2057:17:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC) 2029:14:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC) 2010:13:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC) 1976:12:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC) 1942:20:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC) 1670:21:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 1635:18:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 1610:18:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 1592:17:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 1565:17:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 1480:17:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 1417:17:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 1391:17:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 1370:15:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 1347:14:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 1327:12:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC) 1282:14:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC) 1226:00:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC) 1211:00:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC) 1195:Q: So this trilogy ends it? 1168:16:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 1140:15:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 1128:Star Wars Episode VII (film) 1121:14:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC) 1085:01:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC) 1065:23:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC) 1056:21:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC) 1041:21:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC) 1031:20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC) 940:Article is Strangely Written 934:19:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC) 918:00:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC) 882:10:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC) 853:04:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC) 766:Four trilogies, not three... 597:The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy 453:19:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 278:00:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 251: 154:06:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 109:13:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 90:17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 4263:" is according to... what? 3911:to reactivate your request. 3899:has been answered. Set the 3871:04:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC) 3619:Star Wars stand-alone films 3530:Star Wars stand-alone films 3407:09:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 3371:08:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 3255:00:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC) 2073:17:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC) 1431:17:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC) 806:00:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 786:22:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 5157: 3727:photography after that. - 3623:Star Wars#Anthology series 3312: 3308:21:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC) 2863:receives its own page). ~ 2539:17:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 2521:00:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 2505:00:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC) 2477:01:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC) 1902:Splinter of the Mind's Eye 1006:20:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 976:20:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 908:beholden to it in any way. 752:18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 609:Star Wars original trilogy 601:Sequel trilogy (Star Wars) 372:08:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 356:07:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 342:06:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 310:04:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 247:02:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 220:02:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 131:04:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 3762:There is a draft copy at 3508:Star Wars anthology films 3482:Star Wars Anthology films 3353:www.moviecastingcall.org? 1497:winning screenwriter for 613:Star Wars prequel trilogy 409:02:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC) 190:16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 3897:Star Wars sequel trilogy 3660:Star Wars sequel trilogy 3502:having the new subtitle 3209:Agreeing with the books? 3172:19:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC) 3157:23:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 3138:18:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC) 3106:17:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC) 3088:16:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC) 3070:12:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC) 3055:06:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC) 2994:15:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC) 2126:The Hobbit (film series) 820:13:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC) 3277:Star Wars planned films 2980:17:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC) 2961:20:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC) 2941:16:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC) 2922:14:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC) 2877:22:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC) 2853:19:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC) 2822:19:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC) 2795:17:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC) 2724:14:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC) 2682:00:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC) 2668:21:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 2625:20:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 2594:19:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 2579:. It may be true that 2570:14:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 1904:is one such work, IIRC. 1192:Lucas: yes. They will. 589:Star Wars Future Movies 5011:. You gotta relax. - 4620:Alternately styled as 4563:SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 4557:Agree with Adamstorm. 3664:Future Star Wars films 2775:Star Wars: Episode VII 1981:You've failed to read 1548: 1454:(Which I believe is a 296: 3121:Star Wars Episode VII 2752:(which you uphold is 1792:You have been warned. 1727:So I just noticed an 1487: 1106:Star Wars Episode VII 1101:Star Wars Episode VII 1018:Star Wars Episode VII 101:The Dark Lord of Wiki 42:of past discussions. 2613:Walt Disney Pictures 2558:Walt Disney Pictures 1500:Little Miss Sunshine 1352:No, they don't. See 1012:SW Episode VII merge 433:What, did you think 252:I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS 4593:Personal preference 3478:Star Wars Anthology 2883:has always released 2841:WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH 2735:Touchstone Pictures 2701:Touchstone Pictures 2601:production division 2577:crystal ball gazing 1958:Deletion nomination 1016:Whoever merged the 414:Deletion Discussion 3222:Return of the Jedi 3217:Return of the Jedi 2019:AFD-deficient!) - 396:another 20 years." 5133: 5077: 5023: 4984: 4904: 4753: 4674:The Force Awakens 4661: 4603:The Force Awakens 4525:The Force Awakens 4394: 4337: 4287: 4144: 4089: 4042: 4002: 3953: 3915: 3914: 3792:The Force Awakens 3504:A Star Wars Story 3410: 3393:comment added by 3240:Stand alone films 3226:Anthony Appleyard 3178:Order of episodes 2909:"crystal balling" 2759:original research 2467:comment added by 2347:comment added by 2314:comment added by 2284:comment added by 2213:comment added by 2008: 1339:Magnum Serpentine 1264: 1250:comment added by 1075:comment added by 966:comment added by 843:comment added by 776:comment added by 478:comment added by 468:Merger Discussion 285:1983 Time Article 281: 264:comment added by 225:Expanded universe 198:Expanded universe 156: 144:comment added by 133: 121:comment added by 99:never will be. -- 72: 71: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5148: 5131: 5120: 5119: 5118: 5103: 5098: 5097: 5096: 5090: 5075: 5054: 5049: 5048: 5047: 5021: 5009:focus on content 4982: 4971: 4902: 4891: 4883: 4875: 4867: 4859: 4851: 4843: 4835: 4827: 4819: 4811: 4803: 4795: 4787: 4779: 4763: 4747: 4732: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4698: 4691: 4659: 4639: 4625: 4618: 4581: 4559:Darkwarriorblake 4453: 4438:Darkwarriorblake 4434:NinjaRobotPirate 4392: 4357: 4335: 4285: 4142: 4087: 4040: 4022: 4000: 3954: 3951: 3947: 3939: 3938: 3906: 3902: 3888: 3887: 3881: 3747: 3409: 3387: 3286:NoMatterTryAgain 3164:Vithar Alderland 3149: 3084: 3078: 3047:NoMatterTryAgain 2937: 2931: 2873: 2867: 2839:I concur. It is 2814:NoMatterTryAgain 2791: 2785: 2664: 2658: 2586:NoMatterTryAgain 2479: 2432: 2430: 2421: 2359: 2326: 2296: 2225: 2189: 2187: 2178: 2146: 2144: 2135: 2053: 2048: 2045: 2004: 1940: 1938: 1929: 1894: 1892: 1883: 1848: 1843: 1840: 1773: 1768: 1765: 1749: 1747: 1738: 1723:Jedi Insider.com 1710:Psychonavigation 1668: 1666: 1657: 1631: 1626: 1623: 1590: 1587: 1577: 1542: 1541: 1539: 1537: 1522: 1478: 1475: 1465: 1449: 1446: 1413: 1408: 1405: 1294: 1263: 1244: 1164: 1159: 1156: 1087: 996: 984:reliable sources 978: 877: 869: 864: 855: 797: 788: 726: 718: 713: 676:Jurassic Park IV 617:TheRealFennShysa 560:TheRealFennShysa 527:TheRealFennShysa 490: 369: 364: 320:May 1983 article 307: 302: 280: 258: 139: 116: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5156: 5155: 5151: 5150: 5149: 5147: 5146: 5145: 5129: 5116: 5101: 5094: 5086: 5073: 5052: 5045: 5019: 4980: 4965: 4900: 4885: 4877: 4869: 4861: 4853: 4845: 4837: 4829: 4821: 4813: 4805: 4797: 4789: 4781: 4773: 4757: 4730: 4723: 4701: 4692: 4688: 4657: 4637: 4628: 4619: 4615: 4579: 4469: 4415: 4390: 4351: 4349: 4333: 4283: 4140: 4085: 4038: 4016: 4014: 3998: 3965: 3950: 3945: 3936: 3904: 3900: 3885: 3879: 3788: 3741: 3705: 3621:to redirect to 3416: 3414:Anthology films 3388: 3355: 3315: 3262: 3247:142.165.250.107 3242: 3211: 3180: 3147: 3119:Development of 3114:Jurassic Park 4 3112:Development of 3082: 3076: 3004: 2935: 2929: 2871: 2865: 2789: 2783: 2662: 2656: 2550: 2485: 2462: 2428: 2424: 2417: 2415: 2381: 2342: 2309: 2305: 2279: 2208: 2203: 2185: 2181: 2174: 2172: 2142: 2138: 2131: 2129: 2098: 2065:109.206.133.206 2051: 2041: 2038: 1960: 1936: 1932: 1925: 1923: 1890: 1886: 1879: 1877: 1859:Jason Macendale 1846: 1836: 1833: 1785: 1771: 1761: 1758: 1745: 1741: 1734: 1732: 1725: 1664: 1660: 1653: 1651: 1629: 1619: 1616: 1585: 1581: 1573: 1571: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1535: 1533: 1524: 1523: 1519: 1473: 1469: 1461: 1459: 1456:reliable source 1442: 1439: 1423:109.206.133.206 1411: 1401: 1398: 1378: 1334: 1312: 1290: 1245: 1234: 1178: 1162: 1152: 1149: 1070: 1014: 992: 961: 942: 890: 873: 865: 860: 838: 830: 795: 771: 768: 722: 714: 709: 669:Lethal Weapon 5 473: 470: 416: 384: 382:Retcon by Lucas 367: 362: 305: 300: 287: 259: 254: 227: 200: 77: 75:Lots of cleanup 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5154: 5152: 5144: 5143: 5142: 5141: 5140: 5139: 5128: 5125: 5072: 5069: 5040: 5039: 5038: 5037: 5036: 5035: 5034: 5033: 5032: 5031: 5030: 5029: 5018: 5015: 4979: 4976: 4956: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4952: 4951: 4933: 4911: 4910: 4899: 4896: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4742: 4741: 4740: 4700: 4699: 4693:Also known as 4685: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4677: 4667: 4656: 4653: 4627: 4626: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4606: 4597: 4596: 4590: 4568: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4401: 4400: 4389: 4386: 4348: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4332: 4329: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4282: 4279: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4187: 4166: 4165: 4139: 4136: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4084: 4081: 4068: 4067: 4037: 4034: 4013: 4010: 4009: 4008: 3997: 3994: 3964: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3922:176.151.236.11 3913: 3912: 3889: 3878: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3842: 3841: 3826: 3787: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3704: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3638: 3637: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3415: 3412: 3378: 3354: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3314: 3311: 3279:or something. 3261: 3258: 3241: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3210: 3207: 3179: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3159: 3140: 3108: 3090: 3072: 3030: 3029: 3023: 3020: 3017: 3014: 3003: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2905: 2902: 2894: 2890: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2771:this other one 2750:Marvel Studios 2738: 2708:primary source 2704: 2652:primary source 2584:announcement? 2549: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2524: 2523: 2484: 2481: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2426: 2380: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2339: 2338: 2304: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2286:222.164.133.12 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2215:122.57.226.172 2202: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2183: 2151: 2150: 2140: 2097: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2013: 2012: 1968:82.170.113.123 1959: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1934: 1905: 1888: 1815: 1784: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1743: 1724: 1721: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1662: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1583: 1544: 1543: 1516: 1515: 1511: 1484: 1471: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1377: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1333: 1330: 1311: 1310:Cast reactions 1308: 1307: 1306: 1285: 1284: 1233: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1177: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1143: 1142: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1013: 1010: 1009: 1008: 941: 938: 937: 936: 889: 886: 829: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 767: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 593:Sequel trilogy 538: 537: 521:was closed as 469: 466: 465: 464: 456: 455: 415: 412: 383: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 327: 286: 283: 253: 250: 226: 223: 199: 196: 194: 178: 177: 146:76.192.219.210 135: 134: 123:130.64.158.231 112: 111: 76: 73: 70: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5153: 5138: 5135: 5134: 5130: 5126: 5112: 5111: 5110: 5107: 5104: 5091:, though ... 5089: 5084: 5083: 5082: 5079: 5078: 5074: 5070: 5064: 5063: 5062: 5061: 5058: 5055: 5028: 5025: 5024: 5020: 5016: 5010: 5006: 5005: 5004: 5000: 4996: 4991: 4990: 4989: 4986: 4985: 4981: 4977: 4969: 4964: 4963: 4962: 4961: 4960: 4959: 4958: 4957: 4950: 4946: 4942: 4938: 4934: 4930: 4929: 4928: 4924: 4920: 4915: 4914: 4913: 4912: 4909: 4906: 4905: 4901: 4897: 4889: 4881: 4873: 4865: 4857: 4849: 4841: 4840:Cyclonebiskit 4833: 4832:Fanaction2031 4825: 4817: 4809: 4801: 4800:TrueCRaysball 4793: 4785: 4777: 4771: 4767: 4761: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4751: 4750:edit conflict 4739: 4736: 4733: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4713: 4709: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4702: 4696: 4690: 4687: 4678: 4675: 4672: 4671: 4668: 4666: 4663: 4662: 4658: 4654: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4643: 4640: 4634: 4630: 4629: 4623: 4617: 4614: 4607: 4604: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4594: 4591: 4589: 4586: 4585: 4582: 4575: 4572: 4569: 4567: 4564: 4560: 4556: 4555: 4548: 4544: 4543: 4538: 4537: 4532: 4531: 4526: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4512: 4508: 4504: 4499: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4489: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4461: 4457: 4451: 4447: 4443: 4439: 4435: 4431: 4427: 4423: 4419: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4402: 4399: 4396: 4395: 4391: 4387: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4374: 4370: 4366: 4361: 4355: 4346: 4342: 4339: 4338: 4334: 4330: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4317: 4313: 4292: 4289: 4288: 4284: 4280: 4274: 4270: 4266: 4262: 4261: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4225: 4221: 4217: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4186: 4182: 4178: 4173: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4164: 4160: 4156: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4146: 4145: 4141: 4137: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4116: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4094: 4091: 4090: 4086: 4082: 4076: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4066: 4062: 4058: 4054: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4044: 4043: 4039: 4035: 4029: 4025: 4020: 4011: 4007: 4004: 4003: 3999: 3995: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3970: 3958: 3955: 3948: 3942: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3927: 3923: 3920: 3910: 3907:parameter to 3898: 3894: 3890: 3883: 3882: 3876: 3872: 3868: 3864: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3827: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3802: 3798: 3793: 3785: 3777: 3773: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3755: 3751: 3750:Winterysteppe 3745: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3734: 3730: 3725: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3714: 3710: 3709:Winterysteppe 3702: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3665: 3661: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3610: 3606: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3582: 3578: 3573: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3491: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3421: 3413: 3411: 3408: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3386: 3382: 3381: 3376: 3373: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3329: 3325: 3319: 3310: 3309: 3305: 3301: 3296: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3280: 3278: 3274: 3269: 3265: 3259: 3257: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3218: 3213: 3212: 3208: 3206: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3190:? If there's 3189: 3185: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3160: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3144: 3141: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3122: 3116: 3115: 3109: 3107: 3103: 3102:contributions 3099: 3095: 3094:Lord Sjones23 3091: 3089: 3085: 3079: 3073: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3042: 3038: 3033: 3027: 3024: 3021: 3018: 3015: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3007: 3001: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2942: 2938: 2932: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2910: 2906: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2874: 2868: 2862: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2792: 2786: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2767:already given 2764: 2760: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2736: 2732: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2665: 2659: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2603:be doing the 2602: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2582: 2578: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2547: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2493: 2492: 2488: 2482: 2480: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2469:64.229.149.84 2466: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2431: 2429: 2422: 2420: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2349:65.33.227.253 2346: 2337: 2334: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2302: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2278: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2207: 2200: 2192: 2188: 2186: 2179: 2177: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2149: 2145: 2143: 2136: 2134: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2095: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2080:174.93.160.57 2076: 2075: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2054: 2046: 2044: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1998: 1993: 1989: 1984: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1957: 1943: 1939: 1937: 1930: 1928: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1906: 1903: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1893: 1891: 1884: 1882: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1863:174.93.171.10 1860: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1849: 1841: 1839: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1800:173.25.106.89 1796: 1793: 1790: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1766: 1764: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1748: 1746: 1739: 1737: 1730: 1722: 1720: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1671: 1667: 1665: 1658: 1656: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1636: 1632: 1624: 1622: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1589: 1586: 1578: 1576: 1567: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1552: 1532: 1528: 1521: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1508: 1507: 1502: 1501: 1496: 1495:Academy Award 1492: 1491:Michael Arndt 1486: 1482: 1481: 1477: 1474: 1466: 1464: 1457: 1453: 1447: 1445: 1438:A agree with 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1414: 1406: 1404: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1331: 1329: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1319:Cheesemeister 1316: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1300: 1295: 1293: 1287: 1286: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1240: 1237: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1218:99.17.213.178 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1203:99.17.213.178 1199: 1196: 1193: 1190: 1187: 1184: 1181: 1175: 1169: 1165: 1157: 1155: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1130:. Great... - 1129: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1102: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1077:76.246.55.120 1074: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1063: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1039: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1019: 1011: 1007: 1003: 1002: 997: 995: 989: 985: 981: 980: 979: 977: 973: 969: 968:173.48.162.96 965: 959: 954: 950: 948: 939: 935: 931: 927: 922: 921: 920: 919: 915: 911: 905: 904: 900: 896: 887: 885: 884: 883: 878: 876: 870: 868: 863: 856: 854: 850: 846: 842: 835: 834: 827: 821: 817: 813: 809: 808: 807: 804: 803: 799: 791: 790: 789: 787: 783: 779: 775: 765: 753: 749: 745: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 727: 725: 719: 717: 712: 706: 702: 690: 686: 682: 678: 677: 671: 670: 663: 662: 660: 656: 652: 647: 646: 645: 641: 637: 633: 628: 627: 626: 622: 618: 614: 610: 606: 602: 598: 594: 590: 586: 585: 584: 580: 576: 571: 570: 569: 565: 561: 556: 555: 554: 552: 548: 544: 536: 532: 528: 524: 520: 516: 515:more than 100 512: 508: 507: 506: 504: 500: 496: 491: 489: 485: 481: 477: 467: 461: 460: 459: 454: 450: 446: 443: 440: 436: 432: 431: 430: 429: 425: 421: 413: 411: 410: 406: 402: 398: 394: 390: 381: 373: 370: 365: 359: 358: 357: 354: 353: 349: 345: 344: 343: 339: 335: 332: 328: 326: 321: 318: 314: 313: 312: 311: 308: 303: 295: 290: 284: 282: 279: 275: 271: 267: 263: 249: 248: 244: 240: 236: 232: 224: 222: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 197: 195: 192: 191: 187: 183: 176: 172: 168: 163: 162: 161: 157: 155: 151: 147: 143: 132: 128: 124: 120: 114: 113: 110: 106: 102: 98: 94: 93: 92: 91: 87: 83: 74: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5124: 5122: 5068: 5066: 5041: 5014: 5012: 5008: 4975: 4973: 4936: 4895: 4893: 4769: 4765: 4746: 4694: 4689: 4673: 4652: 4650: 4632: 4621: 4616: 4602: 4592: 4570: 4541: 4535: 4529: 4524: 4479: 4459: 4455: 4385: 4383: 4354:Thewolfchild 4350: 4328: 4326: 4309: 4278: 4276: 4272: 4258: 4135: 4133: 4080: 4078: 4033: 4031: 4023: 4015: 3993: 3991: 3969:this article 3966: 3941:Already done 3940: 3916: 3908: 3893:edit request 3843: 3791: 3789: 3706: 3663: 3659: 3503: 3499: 3419: 3417: 3389:— Preceding 3383: 3377: 3374: 3356: 3320: 3316: 3297: 3284: 3281: 3276: 3272: 3270: 3266: 3263: 3243: 3221: 3215: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3181: 3142: 3120: 3113: 3045: 3040: 3036: 3034: 3031: 3008: 3005: 2949: 2882: 2860: 2838: 2808: 2804: 2801:distribution 2800: 2774: 2762: 2753: 2741: 2605:distribution 2604: 2600: 2580: 2551: 2494: 2489: 2486: 2463:— Preceding 2460: 2425: 2419:MisterShiney 2418: 2382: 2343:— Preceding 2340: 2316:65.33.252.58 2310:— Preceding 2306: 2280:— Preceding 2209:— Preceding 2204: 2182: 2176:MisterShiney 2175: 2139: 2133:MisterShiney 2132: 2099: 2042: 2035: 1995: 1961: 1933: 1927:MisterShiney 1926: 1887: 1881:MisterShiney 1880: 1837: 1791: 1788: 1786: 1762: 1742: 1736:MisterShiney 1735: 1726: 1707: 1661: 1655:MisterShiney 1654: 1620: 1582: 1575:MisterShiney 1574: 1568: 1553: 1549: 1534:. Retrieved 1530: 1520: 1512: 1504: 1498: 1488: 1483: 1470: 1463:MisterShiney 1462: 1443: 1437: 1402: 1379: 1335: 1313: 1298: 1291: 1269: 1246:— Preceding 1241: 1238: 1235: 1200: 1197: 1194: 1191: 1188: 1185: 1182: 1179: 1153: 1105: 1100: 1096: 1071:— Preceding 1015: 1000: 993: 962:— Preceding 957: 955: 951: 946: 943: 926:Brandon Rhea 906: 891: 879: 874: 866: 861: 857: 845:202.3.38.246 836: 831: 828:IESB Article 812:65.94.44.141 800: 778:173.58.64.64 769: 744:129.139.1.68 728: 723: 715: 710: 704: 675: 668: 651:Chrisbuzzard 543:Chrisbuzzard 539: 522: 495:Chrisbuzzard 492: 480:66.90.146.55 471: 457: 441: 439:documentary? 438: 434: 420:76.169.92.56 417: 392: 388: 385: 350: 334:MikeWazowski 329: 323: 316: 297: 292: 288: 255: 228: 201: 193: 179: 158: 136: 96: 78: 60: 43: 37: 5102:ATinySliver 5053:ATinySliver 4968:Adamstom.97 4816:Betty Logan 4760:Adamstom.97 4731:ATinySliver 4638:ATinySliver 4422:ATinySliver 4418:Favre1fan93 4347:Episode VII 3977:Favre1fan93 3847:Echoedmyron 3812:Mark Hamill 2861:Episode VII 2674:89.0.228.12 2581:in the past 2548:Distributor 2078:released.-- 1997:If I Did It 1910:Ian.thomson 1819:Ian.thomson 1536:November 8, 1506:Toy Story 3 1376:Speculation 1354:WP:CLOSEAFD 1274:Ian.thomson 960:came out! 895:68.146.64.9 839:—Preceding 772:—Preceding 674:talk about 667:talk about 603:... it was 523:Speedy Keep 474:—Preceding 463:-Anonymous? 260:—Preceding 140:—Preceding 117:—Preceding 36:This is an 4995:adamstom97 4919:adamstom97 4864:Comatmebro 4708:adamstom97 4584:(Mrjulesd) 4503:adamstom97 4369:adamstom97 4265:WP:MOSFILM 4177:adamstom97 4051:How about 3901:|answered= 3863:RBBrittain 3831:RBBrittain 3816:RBBrittain 3797:RBBrittain 3744:Adamstom97 3729:adamstom97 3669:adamstom97 3605:adamstom97 3148:al-Shimoni 1983:WP:CRYSTAL 1964:WP:CRYSTAL 1689:Barsoomian 1602:Barsoomian 1557:Barsoomian 1513:References 1383:Barsoomian 1362:Barsoomian 1113:Barsoomian 1097:Since the 988:verifiable 867:Taerkasten 716:Taerkasten 632:WP:CRYSTAL 266:Z Thun Der 82:EclipseSSD 5085:Mind the 4941:oknazevad 4872:Katastasi 4784:Oknazevad 4446:Oknazevad 3500:Rogue One 3420:Star Wars 3324:Jason1978 3300:YodaFan67 3062:Eric Ando 3060:I agree. 2763:Star Wars 2742:a part of 2402:Eric Ando 2365:oknazevad 2331:sister. — 2158:Eric Ando 2107:Eric Ando 2103:Star Wars 1332:OBJECTION 986:that are 958:Star Wars 910:Wyldstaar 705:Star Wars 511:Star Wars 445:WCityMike 435:Star Wars 182:Soyweiser 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 5088:overkill 4848:Chris 42 4824:Alaney2k 4808:Ribbet32 4776:Mrjulesd 4530:Snuggums 4488:WP:UNDUE 4442:SNUGGUMS 4430:GoneIn60 4426:Mrjulesd 4365:WP:UNDUE 4269:WP:TABLE 4155:Fnlayson 4053:official 3943:Thanks! 3768:Alaney2k 3627:Fnlayson 3534:Muboshgu 3486:Muboshgu 3445:Muboshgu 3403:contribs 3391:unsigned 3339:Fnlayson 3134:contribs 3041:disagree 2986:Gaijin42 2953:Gaijin42 2845:Gaijin42 2513:Fnlayson 2465:unsigned 2444:Alaney2k 2440:WP:NFILM 2345:unsigned 2312:unsigned 2303:Not Leia 2282:unsigned 2255:Fnlayson 2233:Primogen 2211:unsigned 2201:Director 2043:alaney2k 1838:alaney2k 1763:alaney2k 1621:alaney2k 1444:alaney2k 1403:alaney2k 1260:contribs 1248:unsigned 1154:alaney2k 1132:Fnlayson 1099:AfD for 1073:unsigned 1048:MaxVeers 1023:MaxVeers 964:unsigned 841:unsigned 774:unsigned 519:last one 476:unsigned 363:Khalfani 348:Zagalejo 301:Khalfani 274:contribs 262:unsigned 142:unsigned 119:unsigned 97:probably 4880:Kamek98 4766:against 4580:--Jules 4571:Comment 4448:, and 4312:LLArrow 4216:LLArrow 4172:LLArrow 4107:LLArrow 4057:LLArrow 4019:LLArrow 4012:Credits 3973:MOS:AMP 3646:Rlendog 3590:Rlendog 3572:article 3560:contrib 3520:contrib 3467:contrib 3433:contrib 3196:Gusogun 2887:in 2006 2769:and by 2731:in 2006 2386:Dracuns 2096:History 1570:first. 1531:Vulture 1299:Discuss 1292:Tærkast 1001:Discuss 994:Tærkast 401:Macduff 368:Khaldun 306:Khaldun 167:Yanqui9 39:archive 4888:Chambr 4792:JDC808 4450:JDC808 4360:WP:OWN 4024:et. al 3919:Source 3724:WP:NFF 3662:, not 3395:Codymr 3363:Codymr 3184:before 3077:Jedi94 2930:Jedi94 2901:units. 2866:Jedi94 2805:future 2784:Jedi94 2712:Disney 2691:& 2657:Jedi94 2644:Disney 2611:& 2531:Zedell 2497:Zedell 2021:BilCat 2002:Hiding 1493:, the 1270:direct 1243:movie. 1062:Powers 1038:Powers 437:was a 239:Satipo 231:Satipo 212:Satipo 204:Satipo 5132:child 5076:child 5022:child 4983:child 4903:child 4892:. - 4856:Yodin 4660:child 4633:title 4542:edits 4393:child 4336:child 4286:child 4273:still 4143:child 4088:child 4041:child 4001:child 3946:/wiae 3905:|ans= 3891:This 3143:Agree 3037:agree 2972:Spshu 2914:Spshu 2859:when 2779:WDSMP 2716:Spshu 2648:Pixar 2632:Pixar 2617:Spshu 2562:Spshu 2333:Flax5 1252:Troak 1110:here. 794:Zagal 605:moved 393:after 16:< 5127:WOLF 5071:WOLF 5017:WOLF 4999:talk 4978:WOLF 4945:talk 4932:bad. 4923:talk 4898:WOLF 4770:very 4712:talk 4655:WOLF 4635:. 🖖 4536:talk 4507:talk 4388:WOLF 4373:talk 4331:WOLF 4316:talk 4281:WOLF 4220:talk 4181:talk 4159:talk 4138:WOLF 4111:talk 4083:WOLF 4061:talk 4036:WOLF 4028:here 3996:WOLF 3981:talk 3952:/tlk 3926:talk 3867:talk 3851:talk 3835:talk 3820:talk 3801:talk 3772:talk 3754:talk 3733:talk 3722:Per 3713:talk 3673:talk 3650:talk 3631:talk 3609:talk 3594:talk 3570:The 3556:talk 3552:Erik 3548:here 3538:talk 3532:. – 3516:talk 3512:Erik 3490:talk 3484:? – 3463:talk 3459:Erik 3449:talk 3429:talk 3425:Erik 3418:The 3399:talk 3367:talk 3343:talk 3328:talk 3304:talk 3290:talk 3251:talk 3230:talk 3200:talk 3192:ever 3168:talk 3153:talk 3130:talk 3126:Erik 3098:talk 3083:talk 3066:talk 3051:talk 2990:talk 2976:talk 2957:talk 2936:talk 2918:talk 2898:edit 2872:talk 2849:talk 2818:talk 2790:talk 2746:here 2720:talk 2678:talk 2663:talk 2640:here 2634:and 2621:talk 2590:talk 2566:talk 2535:talk 2517:talk 2501:talk 2473:talk 2448:talk 2406:talk 2390:talk 2369:talk 2353:talk 2320:talk 2290:talk 2259:talk 2237:talk 2219:talk 2162:talk 2124:and 2111:talk 2084:talk 2069:talk 2052:talk 2025:talk 1972:talk 1914:talk 1867:talk 1847:talk 1823:talk 1804:talk 1772:talk 1729:edit 1714:talk 1693:talk 1630:talk 1606:talk 1561:talk 1538:2012 1503:and 1427:talk 1412:talk 1387:talk 1366:talk 1343:talk 1323:talk 1278:talk 1256:talk 1222:talk 1207:talk 1163:talk 1136:talk 1117:talk 1081:talk 1052:talk 1027:talk 972:talk 930:talk 914:talk 899:talk 875:talk 849:talk 816:talk 782:talk 748:talk 724:talk 685:talk 681:Erik 655:talk 640:talk 636:Erik 621:talk 611:and 579:talk 575:Erik 564:talk 547:talk 531:talk 499:talk 484:talk 449:talk 424:talk 405:talk 338:talk 317:Time 270:talk 243:talk 235:talk 216:talk 208:talk 186:talk 171:talk 150:talk 127:talk 105:talk 86:talk 5121:- 4055:?. 3903:or 3895:to 3625:. - 3581:few 3562:) 3522:) 3469:) 3435:) 3275:or 3188:XII 3039:or 2754:not 2615:)? 1452:CNN 1108:is 862:The 802:^^^ 711:The 672:or 458:-- 442:;-) 389:did 352:^^^ 5099:🖖 5050:🖖 5001:) 4947:) 4925:) 4884:, 4876:, 4868:, 4860:, 4852:, 4844:, 4836:, 4828:, 4820:, 4812:, 4804:, 4796:, 4788:, 4780:, 4728:🖖 4714:) 4706:- 4561:/ 4545:) 4539:/ 4509:) 4444:, 4440:, 4436:, 4432:, 4428:, 4424:, 4420:, 4375:) 4318:) 4267:? 4222:) 4183:) 4161:) 4113:) 4063:) 3983:) 3928:) 3909:no 3869:) 3853:) 3837:) 3822:) 3803:) 3774:) 3756:) 3735:) 3715:) 3675:) 3652:) 3633:) 3611:) 3596:) 3558:| 3540:) 3518:| 3492:) 3480:? 3465:| 3451:) 3443:– 3431:| 3405:) 3401:• 3369:) 3345:) 3330:) 3306:) 3292:) 3253:) 3232:) 3202:) 3170:) 3155:) 3136:) 3132:| 3124:. 3104:) 3100:- 3086:) 3068:) 3053:) 2992:) 2978:) 2959:) 2939:) 2920:) 2875:) 2851:) 2820:) 2793:) 2722:) 2680:) 2666:) 2623:) 2592:) 2568:) 2537:) 2519:) 2507:) 2503:) 2475:) 2450:) 2408:) 2392:) 2371:) 2355:) 2322:) 2292:) 2261:) 2239:) 2221:) 2164:) 2113:) 2086:) 2071:) 2055:) 2039:ʘ 2027:) 2000:. 1974:) 1916:) 1869:) 1850:) 1834:ʘ 1825:) 1806:) 1798:-- 1775:) 1759:ʘ 1716:) 1695:) 1633:) 1617:ʘ 1608:) 1563:) 1529:. 1440:ʘ 1429:) 1415:) 1399:ʘ 1389:) 1368:) 1360:. 1345:) 1325:) 1317:-- 1302:) 1280:) 1262:) 1258:• 1224:) 1209:) 1166:) 1150:ʘ 1138:) 1119:) 1083:) 1054:) 1029:) 1004:) 974:) 932:) 916:) 901:) 880:) 851:) 818:) 798:jo 784:) 750:) 729:) 687:) 679:. 661:) 657:) 642:) 623:) 599:, 595:, 591:, 581:) 566:) 553:) 549:) 533:) 505:) 501:) 486:) 451:) 426:) 407:) 340:) 322:: 276:) 272:• 245:) 218:) 188:) 173:) 152:) 129:) 107:) 88:) 80:-- 5105:/ 5056:/ 4997:( 4970:: 4966:@ 4943:( 4921:( 4890:: 4886:@ 4882:: 4878:@ 4874:: 4870:@ 4866:: 4862:@ 4858:: 4854:@ 4850:: 4846:@ 4842:: 4838:@ 4834:: 4830:@ 4826:: 4822:@ 4818:: 4814:@ 4810:: 4806:@ 4802:: 4798:@ 4794:: 4790:@ 4786:: 4782:@ 4778:: 4774:@ 4762:: 4758:@ 4752:) 4748:( 4734:/ 4710:( 4697:. 4641:/ 4624:. 4533:( 4505:( 4452:: 4416:@ 4371:( 4356:: 4352:@ 4314:( 4257:" 4218:( 4179:( 4157:( 4153:- 4109:( 4059:( 4021:: 4017:@ 3979:( 3924:( 3865:( 3849:( 3833:( 3818:( 3799:( 3770:( 3752:( 3746:: 3742:@ 3731:( 3711:( 3671:( 3648:( 3629:( 3607:( 3592:( 3554:( 3536:( 3514:( 3488:( 3461:( 3447:( 3427:( 3397:( 3365:( 3341:( 3326:( 3302:( 3288:( 3249:( 3228:( 3198:( 3166:( 3151:( 3128:( 3096:( 3080:( 3064:( 3049:( 2988:( 2974:( 2955:( 2933:( 2916:( 2869:( 2847:( 2816:( 2787:( 2718:( 2676:( 2660:( 2646:• 2619:( 2588:( 2564:( 2541:) 2533:( 2515:( 2499:( 2471:( 2446:( 2427:✉ 2404:( 2388:( 2367:( 2351:( 2318:( 2288:( 2257:( 2235:( 2217:( 2184:✉ 2160:( 2141:✉ 2109:( 2082:( 2067:( 2049:( 2047:ʘ 2023:( 2006:T 1970:( 1935:✉ 1912:( 1889:✉ 1865:( 1844:( 1842:ʘ 1821:( 1802:( 1769:( 1767:ʘ 1744:✉ 1712:( 1691:( 1663:✉ 1627:( 1625:ʘ 1604:( 1588:) 1584:✉ 1580:( 1559:( 1540:. 1476:) 1472:✉ 1468:( 1448:ʘ 1425:( 1409:( 1407:ʘ 1385:( 1364:( 1341:( 1321:( 1296:( 1276:( 1254:( 1220:( 1205:( 1160:( 1158:ʘ 1134:( 1115:( 1079:( 1050:( 1025:( 998:( 970:( 928:( 912:( 897:( 871:( 847:( 814:( 796:e 780:( 746:( 720:( 683:( 653:( 638:( 619:( 577:( 562:( 545:( 541:( 529:( 497:( 482:( 447:( 422:( 403:( 336:( 268:( 241:( 233:( 214:( 206:( 184:( 169:( 148:( 125:( 103:( 84:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index