New Star Wars: The Force Awakens TV Spot Has New Footage

[Steven Bogos]

New Star Wars: The Force Awakens TV Spot Has New Footage

The latest 30-second The Force Awakens TV spot focuses on Finn, and has a bunch of new footage.

Disney has just released a new short trailer for Star Wars: The Force Awakens and boy does it contain a bunch of new footage. It's only thirty seconds long, so go ahead and check it out to the right.

This new trailer has a focus on the ex-Stormtrooper (maybe?) Jedi-in-training Finn. It has him following a similar path to the young Skywalker in the original trilogy, honing his force abilities and learning about the world around him. The most interesting sequence has him fighting against a bad-ass Stormtrooper who seems to be able to go head-to-head with a lightsaber wielding Jedi. What the heck is that staff-thingy made of, to not get immediately cleaved in half?

The trailer also shows Finn interacting with series mainstay Han Solo, and even puts him behind the controls of the Millennium Falcon for a brief moment.

It is a very short trailer, but it looks like Disney is ramping up the frequency of which it releases new footage from the flick.

Source: Disney [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9-aHfKcelI]

Permalink

 

[Sniper Team 4]

There have been a few ores in Star Wars that can stand up to a lightsaber, or at least disrupt the beam so it's not as focused. Cortosis is one of them. Also, I believe Grevious' body guard droids had energy staffs that could stand up to lightsaber--at least the energy parts anyway. From the brief glimpse in the trailer, that appears to be the case. The weapon is running some sort of current through it that allows it to block the blade. What's interesting is that it appears to be a Tonfa-style weapon, and he only has one--which means he's either really, really, REALLY good, Finn is really bad with a lightsaber, or the Stormtrooper is about to get cleaved in two and we are being misled.

On a side note, please tell me that Finn said, "I dunno" and not "Hell no" because Star Wars isn't supposed to have modern slang in it like that. Yes, I know Han said both, "Damn" and "Hell" in the original films, but they always seemed like slips to me. Star Wars has always tried to make their own slang and foul language, especially in the books (yes, I know they don't count anymore, but you see what I'm getting at).
Also, why would Hell even be a thing in Star Wars? When people die, they become one with the Force--or if you take Crucible into account, other stuff can happen--but the belief of a fiery afterlife awaiting those who don't do...whatever Star Wars' version of it is just doesn't feel right.
Please tell me I'm not the only one thinking this, and that I'm not overthinking a single word in an awesome trailer.

 

[FPLOON]

"Are you sure you're up for this?"
"Hell no..."

That shit's gonna get me every time... Other than that, I was not expecting to see that while watching some Empire, yo...

 

[Ukomba]

Wow, that stormtrooper melee weapon has now taken the top slot for stupidest Star Wars weapon to date -_-. The way he whips it out like he's some kind of bad ass makes it all the stupider. The only way they can redeem that scene is if the guy makes that big show of drawing it (or he has a buddy doing the same thing) and Han shoots him Indiana Jones style and walks away.

 

[Godhead]

So does the black guy pant heavily whenever he takes off a helmet?

 

[Scarim Coral]

So the only thing new in this tv spot is the staff weapon and "hell on". Oh and Finn on the gunner aswell.

 

[Janichsan]

The most interesting sequence has him fighting against a bad-ass Stormtrooper who seems to be able to go head-to-head with a lightsaber wielding Jedi. What the heck is that staff-thingy made of, to not get immediately cleaved in half?

I know we all want to forget the prequels, but the MagnaGuards' staffs from Ep. III also were lightsaber resistant.

The trailer also shows Finn interacting with series mainstay Han Solo, and even puts him behind the controls of the Millennium Falcon for a brief moment.

It doesn't. Finn is manning one of the Falcon's turrets. You know, the same ones Luke and Han were manning in A New Hope...

 

[ExileNZ]

Cortosis is the most commonly-seen substance, but exactly how it interacts with lightsabers seems to vary between stories.
Sometimes it resists them, sometimes it blocks them, and sometimes it cancels them out altogether (I guess by creating some kinda feedback loop? Who knows).

My guess is that cortosis is just another ore, like titanium, and it's the different alloys and other related techs that make it special.

Failing that there's always Mandalorian vibra-blades. I'm not sure they're even made of anything special, but they certainly have the tech to back them up. You saw them a lot in KOTOR and they resisted sabers as well as anything.

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

So does the black guy pant heavily whenever he takes off a helmet?

It's very hard to breathe in those things, don't you know.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Am i supposed to believe that a stormtrooper can match jedi in melee combat?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

all pun intended but I have a bad feeling about this. the more I see of the trailers the more it feels like JJ abrams typical logic holes(the star trek movies are full of them.) and the less I want to see it.

This has been bugging me for a while now.

You ARE aware that directors do not historically create "logic holes", unless you feel like a particular use of lens flare or an obscure camera angle somehow created logical issues.

The people you should be blaming for the Trek problems are the WRITERS. Specifically Orci and Kurtzman if you thought both entries were bad, or you can lay it all on Linelof if you thought Into Darkness was the real culprit. Contrary to popular belief on these forums, directors do not have magical powers to influence every aspect of a production. They're important, yes, but they don't "create logic holes" simply by pointing the camera at things and following the script they are given.

You'll note that Episode VII was primarily written by Lawrence Kasdan, who previously contributed The Empire Strikes Back. Abrams and Lucas both had some script input. If you want to worry about anyone in that trifecta, it shouldn't be Abrams.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

And where does it say it was primarily written by Lawrence Kasdan? They share equal credit on the wiki? I could see making this argument if Abrams wasn't a writer literally credited and even then that means nothing. If you've followed any part of the fallout on Prometheus or F4 the directors were directed blamed for created gaps in logic and story in both films for the sake of timing and story flow. Directors are always the guiding light of films. They control the majority outcome of every film. Directors don't just sit in a chair all day saying "rolltape" and "cut". You should research film making more before making such a bold statement.

By all means then, please inform me of what "logic holes" Abrams introduced into the Star Trek films that can be attributed to his direction, and not to the script. Might help to tie them to previous "logic holes" he introduced in prior works, also as a result of his direction. You appear to be an authority on the subject of film making, so this should be a trivial exercise for you.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

This isn't that difficult but its not even something I need bother arguing, google is your friend. Theres tons of links going over it why those movies dont make any sense.

http://movieplotholes.com/star-trek-into-darkness.html

I dont even know why were having this argument, youre saying "dont blame abrams he didn't write it". He wrote it. This is a fact.

1. All of those complaints are about the script.
2. JJ Abrams did not write the script.

Star Trek Into Darkness is a 2013 American science fiction action film directed by J.J. Abrams and written by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof.

I don't know if we're confused about what "writers" are or what "facts" are here, but JJ Abrams wrote neither Star Trek film.

This is not an argument for or against Abrams as a writer or a director, simply a statement that the frequently belittled plot contrivances and off-tone story lines of the new Star Trek films have absolutely nothing to do with Abrams. Stating that he's to blame for "logic holes", like the ones in the list you helpfully provided, is just confusing. Who else is to blame? The cinematographer? The boom guy? The caterer?

 

[Cycloptomese]

I'm pretty sure that if you all keep arguing this one out for just a few more posts, you'll reach a mutual agreement. Let's hammer this one out, guys. I KNOW you guys can agree! I've got a very positive attitude about this.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I already explained how this works, I get it you're just being contrary. You know full well if you actually took the time to research any of Abrams films or filming making in general your argument is ridiculous.

You can yell at me, call me ridiculous, or attempt to undermine what I'm saying by suggesting I "don't understand film" all you want. You've yet to resolve the issue of stating...

I dont even know why were having this argument, youre saying "dont blame abrams he didn't write it". He wrote it. This is a fact.

...when factually he did not. I find it confusing that you're lecturing me on understanding how film works whilst simultaneously crediting directors with writing films. Abrams does have quite a few writing credits on his bio, some of them highly dubious. If you wanted to attack his credibility on that front you might just single out Armageddon. He did not write Star Trek. You can argue he "changed the script to fit his vision" all you want, but there is absolutely no evidence of that outside of your conjecture.

Here's Bob Orci standing behind his work:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Star-Trek-Darkness-Writer-Bob-Orci-Kindly-Tells-Fans-F-k-Off-39385.html
http://www.dailydot.com/fandom/star-trek-into-darkness-writer-rude-fans/

And here's Lindelof referencing the underwear scene:

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/may/21/star-trek-into-darkness-writer-underwear-scene

Neither one of these individuals seem like writers who feel that a director changed or ran away with their vision, and they seem to take criticism of the writing in the film pretty personally. I wonder why that is, if it's entirely creditable to Abrams, or if the "logic holes" that infuriated fans were a product of his insertions?

I'm pretty sure that if you all keep arguing this one out for just a few more posts, you'll reach a mutual agreement. Let's hammer this one out, guys. I KNOW you guys can agree! I've got a very positive attitude about this.

I dunno man, we're presently stuck on reaching an agreement on what constitutes "a fact".