Hope in the Stars
How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love New Star Wars Films
If you traveled back in time to 2012, I bet a Hollywood producer would have found the notion of an unprofitable Han Solo movie harder to believe than the Donald Trump presidency.
Star Wars has been, if not a Trojan gift, perhaps the quintessential good problem–it’s given Disney a great return on its investment but also quite a few headaches.
Case in point: a teaser trailer released by LucasFilm for the upcoming “Star Wars IX: Rise of Skywalker” produced the expected excited cheers and gasps from the faithful. And yet Disney CEO Bob Iger also recently hinted that the franchise will take a bit of a “hiatus,” following the conclusion of this latest trilogy, which fans weren’t quite sure whether to take as a warning or a desperately needed promise. This is a franchise which is blatantly violating the golden rule of show biz, to always leave ’em wanting more–forget wanting more, it’s refusing to leave at all.
I hated the idea of new Star Wars movies when Disney bought the franchise for $4 billion in 2012, and I still hated it in 2015. And as of last year, I saw no reason to think I was wrong. Seven years ago I said it would be impossible to reinvent something that was about reinvention and damn if I don’t feel like I was right.
With the initial burst of goodwill from the franchise’s return now dissipated, and if one can excise the turbulent culture wars it seems to attract, what you’re left with is movies that are just good enough. They’re well-made, thoughtful, often exhilarating, sometimes surprising, but never transcendent. Despite all the noise, they’re not really worth getting worked up about either way, and that’s a bit of a problem when your movie-goers are already bringing their own passion by the bushload to the theater.
These movies just feel off, and I don’t think it’s really the movies’ fault. Fans debate what went wrong, which filmmakers screwed up, when it fell off the path, or why they’re unfairly criticized. They miss the point–it’s not due to anything about craft, but that these movies can’t seem to find a reason to exist, except that they desperately need to.
The logical flow of the war between the light and the dark was thrown off by the need to give the series a jump start in 2015. Even as Admiral Holdo gives a clear-eyed speech on the meaning of the Rebellion that ought to be inspiring, I can’t help but feel that this conflict is contrived. It’s been willed into existence by the screenwriters, instead of popping onto the screen from the cosmos like it did in 1977. Because, of course, it had to be contrived–Disney had 4 billion reasons why “The Force Awakens” and “The Last Jedi” had to summon the exact same emotional experience as the originals, even when the natural logic of the franchise demanded that it move on.
So I’ve got every reason to shake my fist at the desecration of my beloved franchise–but I won’t. Because I actually find something interesting and–dare I say it?–hopeful about this juncture point. Maybe Star Wars will find the magic again, despite itself.
Now that we’re nearing Episode IX–which I’m sure will be just fine–Star Wars will obey some mystical law of threes and avoid belaboring us with Episodes X, XI and XII. The story of the Empire’s repeated rise and fall spin cycle is finally done, and the studio is also souring on films that supply backstories to the beloved original characters and plotlines. Those turned out to be superfluous and awkward–no more so than when Rogue One introduced an interesting new cast of characters before executing each and everyone, or when the staggeringly unnecessary Han Solo backstory failed to make Disney a blessed penny. And the mind boggles at why we’d possibly need a Boba Fett movie.
Disney’s now trying to convince us that what was once known as the Star Wars saga–Episodes 1 through 9–is simply the Skywalker Saga. Not the tale of a galaxy, as I always thought, but a story of one dynasty within it, distinct from a new amorphous notion of Star Wars. A Star Wars that will continuously expand and evolve with an endless supply of new media, until people are finally tired of it or the sun goes dark, whichever is first.
There’s an unnamed and sparsely described trilogy from “The Last Jedi” director Rian Johnson and another one from the co-creators of Game of Thrones. And then there’s Disney’s streaming show “The Mandalorian,” whatever that is. Johnson’s trilogy will introduce “new characters from a corner of the galaxy that Star Wars lore has never before explored,” according to the announcement, the first time the franchise has ever officially announced such a stark change in direction.
It’s an entirely commerce-driven direction. It’s not good enough for movies to simply be movies anymore, or trilogies or even a series of never-ending sequels like Star Trek or Friday the 13th. Now movies are the mere building blocks of multimedia universes–hosts of sequels, crossovers and spinoffs creating a network guaranteeing not only an infinite ubiquity of products but a tactile, immersive reality for its fans, a place for them to live and interact as it grasps for as much of their identity and imagination as it can. Just ask our president: the prime currency of our age isn’t money or information, but attention.
Of course, this new Star Wars can’t just be about fighting and refighting the same war over and over again. It has to expand, and in doing so it will change the basic idea of what Star Wars is. It was originally a sort of epic poem that just existed for the telling of it, riffing off ancient mythology and our B-grade pop culture. But it’s growing into something else now, and neither its creators or producers–or fans–seem to know exactly what.
That epic poem nature is the biggest reason why Star Wars, to me at least, seemed to chafe at cinematic universification. It’s a story about storytelling.
But Star Wars, after all, helped invent this concept of commercialized universes in the first place. George Lucas, attending Star Trek conventions while he slowly developed his sci-fi opus, saw the potential for captivating his fans with continuously expanding parallel works and a promoting a kind of lifestyle. He started working on Star Wars novels even before the original Star Wars was done. Books like “Heir to the Empire,” which topped the New York Times bestseller list, kept the pulse of Star Wars beating during its lean years and are a big part of why it felt like a juggernaut when the movies returned in 1999, and again in 2015.
I always hated the idea that one needs to be well-read in those works to really get or appreciate Star Wars. Those movies belong just as much to the casual fan as they do to the devotee who knows what a Lugubraa is, and they’re a complete and deep work on their own.
But the expanded universe is undeniably part of Star Wars, even after the books were unceremoniously uncanonized to make way for The Force Awakens. And the concept is about to become a bigger part.
As a new band of space adventurers blast off to the vast expanses of the galaxy in the desperate search for a reason to exist, I have every reason to be exhausted with this.
But what I feel in my gut when I think of it isn’t annoyance but intrigue. Just what will they find? What will Rian Johnson come up with?
This is what the seventh Star Wars movie ought to have been–a more wide-open story imagining what post-year wars in the Republic would have really been like, as the iron foundation of the Empire is replaced with–what? But no matter how much the plot demanded it, for Disney it’s a non-starter–to have started the new chapter this way would have felt anticlimactic to fans and would have likely been suicidal for a studio looking to restart its billion-dollar franchise.
But now that these movies are free from the oppressive burdens of being the Star Wars movies, and can just be Star Wars movies, they can flow more naturally towards compelling storylines. Without a raison d’etre declared by studio fiat, they just might find a more compelling purpose. As does any creator beginning a new work.
One can hope.
I’d still prefer they just turned the damned Star Wars spigot off, but so long as that’s impossible I don’t mind it that the market has dictated it spill onto a wide-open canvas.
It’s been seven years since “The Avengers” hoisted the universe concept into the center of Hollywood, and movie producers have found navigating cinematic universes about as treacherous as a spaceman would find traversing the real ones.
We’ve seen panicked reshoots and debacles (and both), as the studio suits learned that what Disney’s Kevin Feige made look so easy with the Marvel Cinematic Universe is actually astonishingly difficult.
In fact, these days it seems like the whole universe concept is at a juncture point. The MCU is approaching some kind of climax with its ominously titled “Endgame,” and no one’s quite sure what will be coming next. DC Comic’s attempt to force out something similar crashed and burned with the Snyderverse, but they’ve managed to be surprisingly successful with single-hero epics and now are grasping for whatever hooks they can to keep it alive.
Maybe my favorite cinematic universe now is Fox’s X-Men franchise, recently bequeathed to Disney and likely on its last legs. With the centerpiece saga of Charles Xavier’s mutant students all but finished, it lives on by embracing not just a diverse set of characters but of genres as well, with an existential Western, postmodern satire, and–if “New Mutants” ever gets released—horror.
The common theme with all of these is that Feige’s model–films closely connected through tone and plot–is giving way, as the universes themselves expand and diversify to survive. Even Marvel’s universe is beginning to diversify. Its most interesting recent hit, “Black Panther,” had a distinct look and feel–after all, you don’t hire Ryan Coogler for monotony. And the damn thing is, without the MCU it likely never would have been made.
DC’s cinematic universe is today more properly described as a multiverse, as we await “Joker,” which appears to have less in common with any Batman or Superman movie as it does with a Martin Scorsese flick. Slate’s Jordan Weissmann noted that with this fifth cinematic Joker (seven if you count animated), he’d become a recurring mad character like Lear for actors to stretch their muscles.
Universes are beginning to feel as broad as Shakespeare, or maybe even broader–approaching the Platonic ideal of a fictional universe encompassing all possible characters, locations and plotlines, identical to our own but united through a single package of copyrights.
Young filmmakers used to want to make the Great American Film, then they wanted to make the Great American Blockbuster, and now they want to land the Great American Franchise. That requires a whole new creative process–figuring out how to fit the range of dramatic possibilities into a commonly accepted framework. You can like that or not, but at least we can appreciate its benefits. “Wrath of Khan” director Nicholas Meyer–who has never considered himself a Trekkie–once mused that he likely did better work within the franchise limitations than he would have done if someone gave him free rein to make whatever he wanted. The friction between his sensibilities and Trek’s old guard is what created Khan’s magic sparks.
Expanded fictional universes weren’t new even when J.R.R. Tolkien and William Faulkner used them. But there’s something special about unplanned, uncoordinated universes, carved out not by one artist’s imagination but by Darwinian audience demands. Batman, Gotham and the DC Universe could never have been conceived by one person or even a team–it could only be produced by a relentless stream of monthly publications. Neither could Star Trek’s 23rd century. Characters, locations, and plotlines sank or swam on the near-instant feedback from readers, and the accumulation created a kind of inverted relief map of American culture, telling us quite a bit about our collective psyche.
Today, it’s the closest equivalent to mythology.
There’s a lot to ponder about how we let the intellectual property laws define so much of what we think, see and feel. But so long as it is what it is, we might as well celebrate watching some of the best filmmakers of our age try to navigate it.
There used to be something subversive about liking Star Wars–its rebellious spirit of plunder and celebration of B cinema, and the way a generation used it to signal their defiance of growing up. If that sense is still there, it’s lost on me.
But maybe in that vast expanse of planets, Rian Johnson will find some subversion again.
In-universe, of course.
{Originally published at The Parks Department}
My multi-generational reaction: I was in the sweet zone for the original Star Wars: male, SF nerd, early teen. I bit willingly enough, though I was always more of a Trek guy. I eagerly awaited the prequels. I even took the day off work for the opening day of Episode I. That proved ill-considered. I saw all three in the theater, but frankly it was something of a slog, done more out of a sense of obligation to my youthful self than because I enjoyed them. The most recent round? I’ll take my kid if she wants to see it. Otherwise I will catch it on Netflix later. Or not. I never got more than three minutes into Solo, because I can’t work myself up to caring.
Daughters’ generation: My older daughter (fifth grade) sort of likes them, but the idea of this being an all-consuming obsessions is just absurd. My younger daughter (third grade) isn’t interested at all. My impression is that this pattern is pretty widespread in the elementary school set: Star Wars is part of the cultural conversation, but not an especially big part. Hunger Games is much bigger, at least among the girls. Harry Potter is also part of the conversation, but not nearly as big as it was twenty years ago. The real elephant in the room is an amorphous collection of YouTubers and games, especially Pokemon and Minecraft.
I will likely treat Ep. IX the same as the earlier ones: it is up to my daughter whether I see it in the theater, but I will probably get around to it eventually, one way or another. If those Rian Johnson films ever happen, I might actively seek them out. Ep. VIII was by far the most interesting of the new batch, Rogue One being the only other with even shouting distance.Report
I think the target demographic for the new Star Wars movies and side stories are women and people of color in their teens and twenties. Older than your daughters but not typical science fiction demographics.Report
I will never forgive Disney for not just getting the rights to the Thrawn Trilogy and doing that.Report
Seconded. What a character to develop, and for those who constantly want a more “woke” narrative in Star Wars it wouldn’t even be contrived as Timothy Zahn built that into the core of the Thrawn character – an outsider alien (he was frikkin blue) who had to overcome much discrimination and obsticals to become the big bad in the universe. He was ruthless and wicked but had logic to it and a method. Most importantly, his view on the Jedi and force was purely a practical one, and the how he sought out his own dark lord not for the mysticism of it but because the Sith’s use of the dark side apparently improved efficiency and performance of the imperial fleet. It’s all great stuff that could have held what was good and pressed into new areas. I still think at some point someone will, beyond the little bit the animated series has down with the character. It’s just too good to lay unused.Report
Thrawn is a fantastic character, and when I saw how they did him in Rebels, I just wanted more. He is so very, “I am here to do a job, damnit! And I will bend all my will and power to seeing it done!”
Those three book are the only Star Wars books I ever purchased, they were so well done.Report
It could be a crossover: Game of Thrawns.Report
I appreciate the sentiment, even though I haven’t read them. But I think it probably was never in the cards. Disney had so much invested in this, they really had to hit a precise note with the new sequel. And basing it on a book that’s already out there would deflate it a lot–everyone would go out and read it to know what happens, there wouldn’t be as much suspense going into the theater.
Maybe Thrawn trilogy would still have been better, but I can understand why they’d decide they couldn’t.Report
I liked the prequels and I like the new films. The Force Awakens was a bit unoriginal but I liked it for the cast and for the excitement. The Last Jedi had more depth and was hinting at the directions the films *should* be going, the way they have been going since the prequel trilogy: the idea that the Jedi were too rigid, too afraid of the dark side; that the balance must be found in a kind of “gray” Jedi able to use the dark side but not be dominated it (as Luke showed in ROTJ). I don’t know if Abrams has the guts to bring it to the correct conclusion but we’ll see. I suspect IX will be a crowd-pleaser but not finish the cycle the way it should be finished.
Rogue One was the best of the new movies, very different from what had come before. Solo was fine for what it was. Unnecessary and would have been way better if they’d cut out of the first quarter of the movie and just started with the train heist.Report
“And the mind boggles at why we’d possibly need a Boba Fett movie.”
This is a key sentence. In one sense, we don’t need any back stories. The only one who needs any of these movies is the studio. The question is whether there is a back story tale worthy of a movie. I didn’t see Rogue One or Solo, but from what I’ve heard, there was a story worth telling in the former, but not the latter. People don’t always support movies that tell stories worth telling over movies that don’t, but it’s an important characteristic nonetheless. I get the impression that the MCU’s phase three has been largely viewed as a series of movies that look good, and which you have to see all of to get the whole story. But none of them outside of Guardians 1 has been an individual story worth telling. Oddly enough, I think DC’s universe has featured more stories worth telling, even if they didn’t do a good job telling all of them.Report
I should add that I’m currently watching Star Trek: Enterprise, and if there ever was a series that’s workmanlike, a show that legitimately filmed their episodes and showed them…that’s about all I can compliment the show for. And as for the last Star Trek movie, the lack of direction for the franchise was an actual plot point.Report
Solo’s problem was that they needed to make Han too heroic and couldn’t really portray him as the scoundrel he was supposed to be before the original trilogy. Everybody likes Han Solo and even though most Star Wars fans know he started off as a cynical thief out only for himself and Chewbaca, nobody really wants to see that sort of character in a good vs. evil Star Wars movie. What Han Solo was supposed to be really conflicts with the light social justice liberalism of the new films. The movie was suppose to be about how Han Solo got cynical but they really couldn’t go that dark because of the limitations placed on it for being something parents can bring their kiddies to.Report
It was telling that they had to blame his actions on his impoverished upbringing. So not only wasn’t he really a bad boy, society was to blame for whatever flaws he may have initially possessed.
Woody Harrelson’s character was more Han Solo than Han Solo, who was more of a gee-whiz early version of Luke Skywalker.
Report
I still haven’t gotten over how much Attack of the Clones revealed about Fett.
IMHO Fett’s one of the most overrated characters in pop sci-fi anyways, but to the extent he’s cool it’s because of his mystery and his pure self-interested motives.
So George Lucas goes ahead and reveals what he looks like, AND give him a motive to hate the Republic. The prequels sucked for a lot of reasons but this is probably the biggest sin.
Thank God the Fett backstory movie got nipped in the bud.Report
Solo’s bigger problem was that Disney thought Star Wars was Marvel (ie. an IP that could have multiple films a year) when it wasn’t.
If Solo is released in December of last year instead of May, it probably doesn’t do Rogue One numbers because it wasn’t a great movie, but it also probably does better than it did this past summer.Report
Great piece Alex! I really enjoyed it and you encapsulated a lot of my feelz about the recent movies perfectly. 🙂Report
I was familiar with a screenwriter who wrote a book on how to write blockbusters called “Save the Cat!”
Screenrant article on it
Slate article on it.
He defines 15 key beats, and even lays out how much time should ideally be spent on each beat. I watched Star Wars episode VII with this in mind, and Disney hit all the break points within about 30 seconds of the cut-and-paste recommendations.
So, they followed a Hollywood guide on “how to write a blockbuster!” to the letter. Talk about a lack of creativity… It’s certainly a safe call in the board room, or to investors, but so is noting that “Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.”
Report
1. I’m bigger ups on Star Wars and Star Trek than the OP; much more down on DC and starting to become weary of MCU. With that said, of course as long as the loud, bright, and sexy spectacles continue to play in theaters, they’ll continue to be made.
2. Star Wars itself begins its existence as a film student’s engagement with learning the archetypes in the Hero’s Journey, and embodies them so well that they become the way this concept is taught. Note that the Hero’s Journey is also easy to dovetail with a resolution of the Oedipal Complex. (The actual thing — reconciling oneself to privation and delayed gratification — not what the supertext of it describes.) So of course Star Wars is about archetypes. We oughtn’t be surprised that the new movies intentionally use them the way the old ones did — and the prequels fell flat to the extent that they failed to deploy archetypes effectively.
3. I liked how Rian Johnson dealt with all of this in Episode VIII. And I hope that vision of a democratized Force, where anyone might happen to have ability and subtle unseen forces guide them towards their destiny, persists into the next permutation of this universe after Episode IX. I don’t want the Old Republic, I want the forces of individualism and freedom and heroism clashing with monolithic worship of strength for its own sake. In graphically compelling costumes and using visually-arresting lightsabers. With better dialogue than Lucas writes on his own.Report
The trouble with the hero’s journey is that it is quite anti-technology and anti-democratic. Only the hero matters, usually because of his blood line. Almost everyone else is a nameless spear carrier whose individual actions are largely meaningless.
Lucas baked that in at the start by following the basic recipe that’s been used to justify countless tyrannical regimes and despotic dictatorships. The great leader is the great leader because it was his destiny. He rules by divine right because of his breeding or because of his crushing victory over the forces of evil.
Of course sometimes a ruler turns evil, but the only ones who can overthrow him are …wait for it… his children.
Science fiction was a new type of story where an ordinary person, through dint of ingenuity, could toss all that aside by inventing totally new ways to solve problems, or just use a nifty tool they ordered from Amazon.
Trying to shoehorn an ancient story type into a technological future is a difficult fit.Report