I think, first of all, everyone needs to agree on what is meant by "better". I can appreciate the cinematic importance of Citizen Kane. I can appreciate the way the narrative was constructed. I even like it to some degree. But given a choice, there are hundreds more movies I'd rather watch. *thinks* Any of the Bay-Formers films are not among them. But using such a catchall term as "better" I feel is kinda sloppy.
The problem with "SWIQ", aside from sounding pretentious and exclusive, is that it's entirely subjective. Your opinion on what makes a good star wars movie could entirely differ from the next person. So, if they both know how many t tracks are on each lightsaber hilt, or the names of every known planet in the outer rim, what's the standard for which to measure their so called "SWIQ"?
This is where I actually have some notion of where the "SWIQ" concept would come in. What I've pointed out and aspired to for over twenty years now, is the sort of storytelling that can be appreciated on many levels. Deep subtle nods that only really hardcore fans would get, complex themes that people of a philosophical bent would notice and appreciate, and superficial linear narrative and compelling action/dialogue/characters that casual moviegoers would appreciate. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is a good example, IMO. There are a lot of things that only a life-long comic reader like me would pick up on, but they enrich the experience for me. They are not, however, essential to understand what's going on, so people less familiar with those elements aren't left in the dark. They can still follow the narrative, without the added layers of meaning.
Star Wars had this right from the get-go, by building in backstory. The Jedi Knights, the Clone Wars, the Old Republic... There were hints being dropped all over the place to a complex history leading up to the present we were seeing. That added a lot more bandwidth to an otherwise very spare narrative. That richness is where I feel things sort of went awry with later offerings. I won't cite chapter and verse here. But what it comes down to, for me, is that two people can have very different opinions about what makes good Star Wars and both be right -- from a certain point of view. There are people who are fine with lightsaber duels and space battles and don't care about the "why" of it all. Others like having the layers of context, motivation, and history that can be gleaned from a well-constructed fictional universe. Just because they're responding to different levels doesn't make one more right than the other... But I'd argue that
not having the depth there
would make for bad Star Wars, as it could then
only be enjoyed on a more superficial level.
That's been my problem, to some degree, with all the Star Wars films, but to a much greater extent from RotJ on. The more I think about it, the more holes or problems I see. Do I still enjoy them? Yes. Could they have been better-crafted so as to avoid such things? Also yes. That was the point of my rewriting exercise. The advice one of my scriptwriting professors gave us was, "A lot of learning the craft means seeing what others have done before you. But there's a lot of s*** out there. If you ever find yourself being jolted out of the movie by what just happened, don't just sit there b****ing about it -- get a copy of the script and see if you can do better." So I undertook to see if I could write my way out of the corners George found himself written into. And I could. Easily. And drawing from stuff in the EU (and, more recently, the ancillary canon) allowed me to give it those additional layers that I so love, while still keeping the surface narrative a tense swashbuckling adventure or a taut suspense thriller or a chair-gripping psychodrama or...
So that's what I take from The Wook arguing that there
can be an objective standard. An important point to make, though, is that establishing such a standard does not negate people's enjoyment of things, neither does it mean people who analyze and rate things according to said standard are incapable of enjoyment themselves (me, I like understanding why I enjoy something, but I'm more introspective than a lot of people), nor does it mean that the standard can't change as new data is introduced. I think SethS did a good job of running down some of the key points of what makes something "Swarzy". There are, after all, only seven stories. The rest is
how any given one is told.
I liked Rogue One, but I knew I was there to see the lead in story to A New Hope. But I don't think you can have Star Wars without having lightsabers and the Force.
Otherwise, isn't it all just Star Trek? :eek
No.
Star Trek is (or, at least, should be) an entirely different storytelling mechanic. Opera deals with big, sweeping archetypal high-concepts. Star Trek is essentially an encounter group for Humanity, holding a mirror up to better understand ourselves through meeting strangers. There's a reason the original pilot got dinged for being "too cerebral".
--Jonah