Star Wars: The Force Awakens International Teaser Trailer

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Medium of Death**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
People on this thread are expecting ESB, but you're not getting that!

You're getting trade delegations, a modern day Jar Jar, a villain with breathing problems, and a lot of wooden acting.

Like I said, 12 months from now, the mods will be pushing carts around and shouting bring out your dead!

I hope I'm wrong, but this is Disney we're talking about. Maxim money = equals getting the whole family involved, which logically rules out a film along the lines of ESB

I hope I'm wrong, but JJ's Star Wreck escapades don't fill me with any hope.

Don't know why you're pushing this opinion. Star Wars has always been a family movie. The OT is a U rated trilogy.

What's wrong with family films?

The prequels writing was idiotic and awkward, they even attempted to move away from family friendly in the third one and it blew chunks. I'm hopeful that the writing is there, I'm sure the criticism of the Into Darkness writing hasn't been lost on JJ. This is the film he wanted to do instead of Star Trek. He was testing the water on the inferior franchise clearly...

If you're referring to the droid being a new Jar Jar then your off to a bad start. When have the droids ever been serious in the OT films? Who are the first two characters we get to see in Star Wars? Is it not R2 & C3PO, the comic relief?

It's a fan edit, but the scenes are the same, he's messed around with the visuals but the original isn't on youtube.

This is who introduces us to our super serious, dark gritty and most definitely adult space opera setting. A morose, effeminate robot and his beeping trash can pal.

**Ahtman**

Medium of Death wrote:
What's wrong with family films?

In and of itself nothing. The problem lies in execution. To often 'all ages' is translated into 'stupid', or is condescending to all watching, when being made.

**Medium of Death**

Well the closest thing to a family film that he's done is probably Super8, then Star Trek.

I'm not sure if they really count as family films in the traditional sense though because they aren't rated U/PG.

Most family films now have poor plots and feature a fair amount of casual violence.

The OT trilogy explores lots of themes without ever turning away from being friendly for kids. Certainly they might not appreciate what's going on fully but there's enough to enjoy.

If this film turns out to be a U I'll take it as a better sign than if it's a 12. PG is anybodies guess.

Here's the bbfc's description of U. For some reason the phrase "Mild Peril" keeps coming into my mind from old VHS tapes.

What does U mean?

The U symbol stands for Universal. A U film should be suitable for audiences aged four years and over. However, it is impossible to predict what might upset a particular child, especially at this lower end of the category range.

What about works for children younger than four?

We rate films and videos aimed at very young viewers, such as Chuggington or Tinga Tinga Tales, U. However, we give them special BBFCinsight stating they are ‘particularly suitable for pre-school children’. Films or videos with this BBFCinsight should raise no significant issues in terms of discrimination, drugs,, imitable behaviour, language, nudity, sex, threat or violence.

Will there be any bad language in a U film?

At U we only allow infrequent use of very mild bad language (e.g. ‘damn’ and ‘hell’).

Might U works contain any sexual behaviour?

Characters may be seen kissing or cuddling and there may be references to sexual behaviour. However, there will be no overt focus on sexual behaviour, language or innuendo.

Sex and sex references are treated the same irrespective of sexuality so there could be mild or undetailed references at U.

Is violence or threat permitted in a U film?

Violence will generally be very mild. A U film may include brief fight scenes or moments where characters are placed in danger. However, moments of emotional stress or threat will be quickly resolved and the outcome will be reassuring.

There may be brief scary scenes and moments where the characters are placed in danger. As with violence, however, these scenes will be balanced by reassuring elements, such as comic interludes or music.

‘Baddie’ characters may carry or use weapons, but there will be no emphasis on these. Child or ‘hero’ characters are unlikely to use any kind of weapon outside, for example, historical settings.

What about behaviour which children might copy?

Potentially dangerous or anti-social behaviour which young children may copy, must be clearly disapproved of.

What sorts of films are usually passed at U?

A U film can explore a wide rang of themes, as long as the treatment is appropriate for a young audience. This doesn’t mean that all films rated U are children’s films.

A children’s work at U will generally contain positive messages about loyalty, honesty and friendship, particularly amongst children. The film or video may well have a happy ending for the child and the overall tone should be one of reassurance.

U films are unlikely to contain discriminatory language or behaviour unless it is clearly disapproved of.

Will there be references to drugs?

At U there will not normally be references to illegal drugs or drugs misuse unless there is a very clear anti-drugs or educational message which will be understood by a younger audience.

Drugs references which are unlikely to register with young children and are brief or passing may occasionally be passed at U – for example a verbal reference to ‘the Opium wars’ in an historical documentary.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ahtman wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
What's wrong with family films?

In and of itself nothing. The problem lies in execution. To often 'all ages' is translated into 'stupid', or is condescending to all watching, when being made.

Once again, you've said what I wanted to say, but shorter and more concise! That's two days running!

I like Star Wars, but from a critical point of view, it tries to be all things to all men, and often, falls short because of it.

**Commissar-Danno**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Just for giggles:

Heres another one

**Ahtman**

And to think this thread will last another year, then we'll have one about the actual movie after that which will run until the trailer for the next one comes out.

**Medium of Death**

The OT wasn't perfect, but I'd really only replace the Ewoks in that entire trilogy. It's the only time I'm disappointed in the original films. Even then I can deal with it because of the massive space battle and Luke struggling with the force going on and that's only happening in the background.

I'm still waiting to see the reasoning behind the explanation that Disney won't be capable of providing another ESB equivalent film considering ESB is a U. Disney has made quite a lot of U movies with dark themes in its time.

All things to all men is a bit of a stretch and really needs an explanation.

Whether people will consider it to be good or not is another thing. I want good Star Wars films to enjoy, Disney is in a much better position to provide it now than Lucas has been in the last 30 years.

I was very sceptical of this movie when first glimpses started to be shown. I got massive Phantom Menace vibes. The more that we've seen, culminating with this teaser trailer has me feeling a lot more confident that we're back on the path of the OT, if not exactly following in its footsteps.

**hotsauceman1**

Will Star Wars Replace "The Hobbit" for christmas movies for the net 3 years?

**BaronIveagh**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Will Star Wars Replace "The Hobbit" for christmas movies for the net 3 years?

Probably. Though, is that a bad thing?

**hotsauceman1**

Im just wondering, that is all.

**insaniak**

From memory, that's what they did with the Prequels.

Although aren't the new movies supposed to be 2 years apart, with a standalone in between each one?

**Soladrin**

best version of the trailer, ever.

**Yodhrin**

insaniak wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
... so why the hell would its creators design it specifically to operate best on shifting, loosely-packed granular material like sand rather than on the solid surfaces which it will spend the vast majority of its time using?

It wouldn't be designed specifically for sand. It would be designed to be zippy on a range of different surfaces. See the pic I posted earlier with the excerpt from Ralph McQuarrie.

Ralph McQuarrie made some truly fantastic designs, and some of the nods to his work like the "new model" X-Wings have grown on me to the point I actually really like them, but on the droid front it has to be acknowledged that things have moved on from his original concepts - droids in Star Wars are built with a specific purpose and a specific operating environment in mind, most are churned out by massive factories in their millions, it's highly unlikely a mass-produced astromech would be over-designed and over-specced to operate outside of its niche. If the hypothesis about it being some scrap Frankendroid turns out to be correct, fine, I'll happily downgrade from "moronic" to "obvious toy-fodder with an excuse plausible enough I can ignore that fact", but otherwise it's going to be one of those niggling annoyances that bother me when I try to rewatch the film like those silly and pointless "flippy barrels" on the JJ-Trek phasers.

...either way it's a daft idea that they evidently didn't put any thought into beyond "Hey brah, you know what would be like mega-kewl? A LIGHTSABER BROADSWORD DUDE! Yeeaaaaaaaaah! *sunglasses*".

Looking badass is half of what Sith are all about.

**Nicky J**

Unfortunately, its probably gonna end up looking like this:

**mitch_rifle**

I think we should just wait till the film comes out. About the lightsaber though im thinking that the fighting style might be different in this one more slow and measured like the first films.

I remember watching some type of special features and Lucas saying that he imagines the lightsabers to be heavy and ancient rather than the ridiculousness we see in the prequel trilogy. this was a quote from when he was making number 4 i think

If this sith guy fights with his saber like his using a broadsword than ill accept it if hes doing backflips swinging like a madman than ill be a bit annoyed

**Platuan4th**

mitch_rifle wrote:
I remember watching some type of special features and Lucas saying that he imagines the lightsabers to be heavy and ancient rather than the ridiculousness we see in the prequel trilogy. this was a quote from when he was making number 4 i think

The EU actually addressed this before the Prequels even came out. Lightsabers ARE heavy, it's just that Force users are able to use it to counter that weight. There's even a part in New Rebellion where Luke and his fallen student are dueling when some Ysalimiri are brought near and Luke mentions it's like he's suddenly swinging while surrounded by heavy liquid. They go from finesse fighting to brute force swings due to the weight of the saber caused by loss of connection to the Force.

New Rebellion isn't the best book, but that's always stuck with me.

**Crablezworth**

I feel like this best describes my issue with the teaser:

**Frazzled**

Soladrin wrote:
best version of the trailer, ever.

Ok thats officially awesomeer. I love the Falcon and 8 bazillion tie fighters.

**H.B.M.C.**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Will Star Wars Replace "The Hobbit" for christmas movies for the net 3 years?

3? Oh boy. SW will become the Call of Duty of cinema. We're getting 1 a year for the foreseeable future.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Well if it works for Marvel...

**KingCracker**

I'd be fine with that as long as they don't turn this franchise into a stale piece of bread.

**Ahtman**

KingCracker wrote:
I'd be fine with that as long as they don't turn this franchise into a stale piece of bread.

Your optimism gives me hope. Not much though considering the prequels already turned the franchise into a stale piece of bread.

**Paradigm**

I'd be with the films continuing indefinitely. I mean, they have to get to the Old Republic film everyone actually wants eventually, right?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Feth yes. Give me an M-rated Star Wars: The Mandalorian Wars.

**Paradigm**

Know what? I'd trade in half a dozen of these new post-ROTJ movies for just one set in the Old Republic. I want to see armies of Jedi (and later Sith), I want space battles that make Endor look like a playground scrap, I want to see everything that makes the setting of the earlier films fall into place.

Actually, I'd just take 2 hours of this:

**His Master's Voice**

Paradigm wrote:
Know what? I'd trade in half a dozen of these new post-ROTJ movies for just one set in the Old Republic. I want to see armies of Jedi (and later Sith), I want space battles that make Endor look like a playground scrap, I want to see everything that makes the setting of the earlier films fall into place.

Isn't that precisely what made the prequels such terrible drek? I mean, the execution didn't help, but SW never felt like it needs, or in fact has any place, for the extravaganza Lucas inserted into the prequels.

**Paradigm**

His Master's Voice wrote:
Paradigm wrote:
Know what? I'd trade in half a dozen of these new post-ROTJ movies for just one set in the Old Republic. I want to see armies of Jedi (and later Sith), I want space battles that make Endor look like a playground scrap, I want to see everything that makes the setting of the earlier films fall into place.

Isn't that precisely what made the prequels such terrible drek? I mean, the execution didn't help, but SW never felt like it needs, or in fact has any place, for the extravaganza Lucas inserted into the prequels.

The prequels came out worse largely from poor writing, poor attempts to insert needless comic relief, and a series of sub-plots that, in many cases, were far from convincing. However, there is plenty of room for spectacle and 'extravaganza' in the setting, and it's in this that I think the prequels hit their few heights. The battle over Coruscant at the opening of Revenge remains one of my favourite and one of most visually stunning scenes ever in my opinion, the area battle on Geonosis in Attack, despite the stupid bits, does look awesome when you see dozens of lightsabers flying around against hundreds of droids. And see any number of epic engagements in Clone Wars for further evidence.

Anything set in the Old Republic would be very tonally different for anything that had gone before, but that's no bad thing. It would need to be a bit darker, a bit more politically and emotionally introspective (especially if it concerned the birth of the Sith), but at the same time, more epic, and grander. The Jedi would not be monks in temples but soldiers in a war, and you could tell a very different story through them in that role.

Star Wars has always endeavoured to be bigger and better than its contemporaries, and to be as much a visual spectacle as a story.

**Flashman**

Love this from John Boyega in response to those making negative "storm troopers should all be white" remarks.

John Boyega wrote:
"Thank you for all the love and support! The fan mail and fan art has added to my joy! Isn't it crazy that Star Wars is actually happening? I'm in the movie but as a star wars fan I am very excited. A year is a long time but it will be worth the wait.

To whom it may concern: Get used to it. "

**Asherian Command**

I don't understand why people complain about a teaser trailer.

Come on peeps.

The Sword makes sense. It may not look like a normal lightsaber but if someone is able to dual wield those bloody things I think we can have a bastard sword.

**Rainbow Dash**

KingCracker wrote:
I'd be fine with that as long as they don't turn this franchise into a stale piece of bread.

I thought it already was.