Mithrandir said:

J J's Paranoia comes from his own mindset, in which he believes that plot-twists and surprise are the most important elements of a cinematic experience.

Faust, Oedipus, The Illiad, Dante's Commedy...most of the major works of art Men have created have quite predictable endings, we can foretell what will happen, but we don't know how will it happen, and the depth of these works is set in that how. The Prequels sucked, not because we knew the story already, but because they were shittily told, in every single way, from script to visuals.

Now, Star Wars redefined the concept of plot-twist with "I am your father"... and it was cool, because it was jaw-dropping but also because it presented the opportunity to make personal for the character a struggle that was mainly political. It was fine for a 3 part movie.

Now there's a virtually unlimited number of movies, and it should be time to realise there's a lot more to tell in any story than deus-ex-machina-kind of stuff. I mean this diegetically, and non diegetically, a film is perfectly enjoyable even if you know everything that will happen.

JJ only believes in Jaw-dropping amusement. Lost proves this, and that is the source of his secrecy. It's funny he is compared with Spielberg some times.

Interesting take as I never thought of it that way. You are essentially saying he is more in the M Night Shalayman type movies where the twist in the movie is the foundation of the movies.

That sort of worries me a twist in a movie should be gravy, but shouldn't be the foundation of the movie. Sure there are great movies with great twists: Sixth Sense, Usual Suspects, Presummed Innocent, etc. But SW movies were never about the 'twist'. I contend that Empire Strikes Back is a great movie, regardless of the twist at the end.