What does it even mean to claim there is a new Star War in 2015? We can take the nihilistic consumer view, and accept that because some persons who have acquired the legal rights to make such a claim have released a new product under those auspices, that it follows that such is the case. But is this really any audience members precondition for what constitutes a Star War? Again, we can be capitalist-nihilists and say that all consumer commodities are intangible, authorless, even ruderless. But surely Star Wars is born of a moment? There was a legitimate moment of unprecedented creative flourish, marking multiple converging circumstance from which a movie-film was born and to which any greater commodification - we are supposed to be able to argue - is periphery. If we are not completely awful people then surely the measure of whether there is, in fact, a new Star War must be contingent on an equivocal confluence of happenstance and impulse?
On the plus side, everything is horrible. If a Star War had come out in 2007 it would have been a fucking disaster because the western world would have still been performing to the lie that it was going some place. Now, fortunately, capitalism is in free fall, everybody is miserable and nobody has any money. Which is precisely the circumstances prerequisite to the releasing of a good Star War.
On the down side, there is neither happenstance nor impulse involved. The conditions in advance of a Star War in 1977 were none conditions. Nobody asked for it, and nobody knew they were getting it until after they got it. Today there are very stringently monitored conditions for how much sand should or shouldn't be involved, the syntax of sentences from particular characters mouths, the height and width of particular made up species, and a highly systematised and prescriptive reading of character informed by whom ejaculated over whom and in which particular order.
These are not the preconditions for free and imaginative film making. I have no expectation of Mr Abrams to tread the well fenced paths of āMidichloriansā or āTrade Embargoesā, or to act against any other micro-aggresions demarcated and policed by the Neighbourhood Watch that is fandom. I fully expect him to colour inside the lines and to know which crayons the community approves. But is that going to be any kind of fun to watch?
I just want you to know in advance that if this film is "definitely better than the prequels" but also "kinda rote and pedestrian" that it is 100% the fault of you and your entitlement and fuck you.
Abrams is working with Michael Kaplan again, who costume designed his Star Trek movies and who also dressed Blade Runner. These are the things which actually matter. They matter a lot more than whether or not you liked the pod-racing. They matter because they speak to an actual continuity of practice between individual and collaborative professional artists. Kaplan never dressed a Star War before but his work dates back to the same period, so the designs that are coming out of this new film are first hand, they aren't inbred derivatives of an incestuous videogame semiotic. The question raised is whether or not we are in an age possessed of or even requiring new Dykstra's or McQuarrie's to make up the numbers?
Another important point is that cinema is dead. I don't know if this works in the projects favour or not? Cinema wasn't dead in 1977, in fact American cinema was more creatively healthy than at any other time, and Star Wars kinda ruined all that. But it was on it's arse financially, competing against home entertainment, so the stakes are very similar again. If this one movie doesn't work out I think we all get to write off the whole enterprise. We can close and rebrand all the movie theaters as Marvel themed creches and lock all the teenage boys in there forever. They wonāt even notice. We can throw in sandwiches through the roof once in a while.
Time and performance management will tell...