Title Revealed...

It's literally all over. Google News, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, pretty much every well known site imaginable. You'd have to boycott the internet until December 2015 and pretty much become a home recluse to avoid that spoiler

 

And if you were on the boards here you would be screwed from the get-go since its now in the SA title.

 

No... it would be very foolish to think that way.

 

I think it's a decent title. Not the best, but certainly works. At least it's not overly-complicated or overly vague.

 

*guy walks in blindly, waving his hands around at the counter with a wad of sweaty money in his hands*
"Give me Star Wars tickets!"
"For Star Wars: The Force Awakens?"
"Ahhhhh!!! You've ruined it for me, you spoiler!!"

 

Episode VIII: The Force Makes Coffee

 

Perhaps after a glass or two of wine...

 

Yes. But I am willing to give this a chance. Wait and see and all.

 

Thought so. After seeing Palpatine being able to hide in plain sight for 3 movies, it would be cool to see the Jedi do some sweet stuff with the Force in their favor. Though seeing Starkiller and Abeloth would be too much. Aspects from both would be interesting however. All I know is, is that its going to be one heck of a ride.

 

Yeah I mean how can you buy tickets to a movie you don't know the name of...

"2 tickets to, ummmm, ummm what's it called?"
"The Force Awakens"
"YOU RUINER!!!!"

 

Why would you assume that's what the movie is going to be? Because the title has a mystical quality to it? This is still JJ Abrams we're talking about, not Dave Filoni. I don't think he has it in him to give us esoteric, prolonged sequences of Jedi pontification. That's not in his vocabulary as a filmmaker.

Always remember, your focus determines your reality My focus is that this is a Star Wars movie by the guy who gave us the "no BS, all fun" 2009 Star Trek. Therefore, I'm actually pleasantly surprised that the title hints at a sense of mysticism at all, because that's not usually in JJ's sensibility. It makes me think that JJ understands that the saga is about more than X Wings and blasters, that there is and always has been an underpinning of mythology and fantasy.

 

Huh, see, I'm actually the opposite. I wasn't too happy with what Abrams did with the Star Trek movies, but some of his other work - such as Fringe - gives me some hope that he can pull off Episode VII. I mean, unlike with Star Trek, he's not openly admitting to disliking the original source material...

I'm relatively neutral about the title. It fits with the pattern of the previous trilogies, but of course it's vague enough that it's difficult to have a real opinion.

 

I can say that I was neutral to Abrams Trek 2009, but I did really love ST Into Darkness.
However, not being a trekkie and never having seen even a single episode of the original series (I've seen quite a bit of Next Generation though) I don't really have the right to judge it on such a level

 

I think it shows that Abrams was willing to take some aspects of the original sources and make something out of them. However, given his past history, I wouldn't be surprised if he comes out of left field on a lot of things, especially those with more creative freedom.

So the title seemingly tells me that he's willing to keep to the older, more-established stuff, but he's not giving anything away regarding how he'll use them (so no 'Return of the Jedi', 'Revenge of the Sith', etc.) We don't even know which side of the Force 'awakens' here (guessing the Dark Side, but again we don't know).

 

My real problem with the new Star Trek movies is that he seemed to take only the very superficial aspects of the original to make something new out of. He admitted that he'd never really watched Star Trek, and that's what it came off as - some of the characters seemed not just like stereotypes of themselves, but inaccurate stereotypes of themselves (Kirk in particular), and the...I don't know, spirit, of the original TV shows and movies was missing. I wouldn't have wanted the details to be the same, of course - not much point in having a reboot if there's no creativity or original material - but it felt like it might as well have been a different franchise. And I'm glad Abrams made movies that appealed to people who had no familiarity with the rest of the franchise, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

Anyway, like I said, I don't think he has the same attitude towards the Star Wars movies as he did towards Trek, so I'm hoping I'll enjoy the new trilogy. I'm fine with the title being vague - it'll be interesting to see what it turns out to be referring to.

 

I agree with skygawker on JJTrek; he didn't get the spirit or themes of the original. I think Gene Roddenberry would hate what he did with it. But he made his Trek more like SW, so I'm optimistic that he'll get SW right although he got Trek wrong.

As for the title, I'm hoping it means more spirituality and less pseudo-science in the film.

 

I'm still angry about what Abrams did to Christine Chapel, but that's a rant for another time.

Personally, I'm a fan of both the psuedo-scientific and the...I wouldn't say spirituality, but the mythology/philosophy aspect, as long as both are integrated smoothly into the storyline.

 

The spiritual aspects of Star Wars have always resonated very deeply with me, so either Abrams will get it right and I'll love this movie, or he'll get it wrong and I'll hate him forever. One or the other.

 

Well, it's a reboot. You can't expect the characters to stay the same. I had the same argument with my sister who is also a trekkie.

One must keep in mind that Trek died a slow death before Abrams came and revived it. The typical approach didn't work anymore so he had to go with a new one. At least the franchise now has a future rather than only a past.