bkev said:
Hijacking Tobar's JJ post from the Trek thread over in off-topic because I feel it's relevant here. Allow me to direct you to the original theatrical trailer for Star Wars. Pay close attention to a particular quote from the narrator: "The story of a boy, a girl, and a universe." Sounds pretty simplistic, right? There's not much depth to the trailer... and, ultimately, I feel the same way about the film itself. At its core, Star Wars 77 really is a movie of style over substance. It's the movie George Lucas made because he couldn't get the rights to Flash Gordon. It gives you everything you want from a blockbuster film - easy to follow plot, endearing characters played by actors with chemistry, etc. - but goes above and beyond due to (well, I personally attribute much of the success to these factors) the editing and iconic musical themes throughout. I must admit, in my time here, Anchorhead's love of '77 rubbed off on me.
While I said it gives its audience what it wants, that doesn't necessarily mean it entirely lacks what they need. Star Wars manages to balance the two well enough that the movie never feels like it's missing something. The two main protagonists*, Han and Luke, have character arcs. They develop. Han has a change of heart, and Luke is suddenly thrust into adulthood and responsibility following the death of Ben Kenobi. In that sense, it satisfies both needs and wants - you feel like there was a greater purpose to the story than the action, even if that's what your attention focuses on.
I personally believe Empire has the stronger story given that everyone, including Leia, develops in that film. But Star Wars '77 has more style. To me, it's a pretty damn good standalone film - I don't know if I could say that about Empire. By the time I saw Empire I had already grown attached to Luke & Company. Without that bond, I don't know if I would have cared about the characters as much. Because I knew where they started, the development felt more organic. Also, I'm not sure if it balances needs vs wants as well as Star Wars itself.
What does this have to do with JJ? I return to my point on style. The man certainly has some, even if you don't care for the other aesthetics of his films/media projects that come with his role as an auteur. I trust him to make a simple, fun movie that satisfies both my needs and wants as a filmgoer. So far, he's managed to (particularly with Super 8) -- although note that I haven't seen Into Darkness, and that I never had much fondness for the original Trek (I started on TNG.)
To close this mouthful of a post, I'll talk about what happens when substance takes over style: the prequels. Trade disputes? False flag terrorism? On their own, fine - even interesting, particularly the latter - concepts. Just not in the Star Wars universe. It bogs down the moments where style succeeds in the prequels, like the establishing shots of Theed. Ultimately, there needs to be a balance between the two that can't just center around having both as in-your-face as possible. That's what the prequels did, and failed. I think Abrams can manage balancing these two factors, at the very least, better than Lucas... and that's me downplaying my affinity for him as an auteur.
Excellent points, many of which occasionally get lost in the noise this franchise has become. Along with a myriad of other inabilities and demons Lucas was tangling with, he never understood what made Star Wars77 connect with the audience. Like you pointed out, it was the simplicity. It was fun. It was an escape. It wasn't a government\economics course.
Even in 1977 he had to be guided by Marcia and Gary (among others). He just didn't get it. Once he became the sole decision maker, the franchise was doomed. The decision to eliminate any checks and balances was a terrible idea. One that gave us (arguably) four bad films.
I too trust Abrams to understand what made 1977 work. If we've seen anything so far, it's that he's a fan of the 1977 universe.
Again, excellent post bkev.
