I’m sure most of you will be aware that a new star Wars trailer came out last week. I was pondering star wars last night. It struck me that one could broadly say that there are two types of film franchise in terms of structure: there’s what you might call an ‘open’ franchise, where self-contained episodes are played out in an overarching fictional world. Examples include Star Trek, where individual films stand alone, and James Bond, which I’d say is very episodic with individual films have almost no bearing on one another save for the odd reference. Of course, there are a few narratives running throughout Trek, such as the federation’s relationship with the Romulans, but they aren’t fundamental to it. You could come into trek at any point and still understand it. The same goes with Bond: I don’t have to have seen Goldfinger to enjoy Casino Royale. The narratives of each episode combine to gradually build up a fictional space which can be further built upon, a world in which a variety of stories can take place provided they stay within the rules of that world.

The second type of structure can be called ‘closed’. This is where all the films in a franchise join up to form one overarching story. A good example is The Lord of the Rings, composed of three films which tell one story. I’d say, here, that it would be more difficult – although not impossible – to watch the two towers without knowing what happened in Fellowship of the Ring. It’s more like a Soap opera, with one installation leading directly into another. I’d say Harry Potter is in this camp too. When the overarching story is told, when the one ring is destroyed and Voldimort vanquished, the narrative ends: there is no more; the characters have served their purpose and are allowed to rest.

The question I wonder about is, which camp does star Wars belong to? Here I’m only referring to the mainstream cinema-released films. I know there is tons of peripheral stuff, but most people are not familiar with that. Taken on it’s own, I’d say that Star Wars belongs in the latter, closed camp. It tells one overarching story basically the birth, rise and fall of Anikin Skywalker. He died in Return of the Jedi, quite an emphatic poignant death, so under my framework, star wars should be over. That’s why I still have my doubts about the seventh film; it just seems a money-making exercise with no artistic merit. If JK Rowling wrote another harry Potter novel, no doubt people would cry ”Isn’t she rich enough already?” That narrative is complete, as is star wars.

Yet part of me is asking why. You could say that, in terms of my categorisation, star Wars has room to manoeuvre, an ambiguity to it. The original 1977 film, a new hope, was originally conceived as a stand-alone film, and then the franchise was expanded into three, then six, films. Why shouldn’t it go further? I’m sure many star wars fans would argue that if you take into account all the non-cinematic stuff, the ‘extended universe’ and so on, my categorisation is wrong and that the narrative is far from closed. My task, in that case, is clear: time to go find out about all this other Star Wars material I’m only vaguely aware of. Perhaps there’s more to this than I thought. Perhaps star wars could be swapping positions.

Until then, though, I’m afraid my initial assessment stands: I cannot shake the idea that star wars 7 is nothing but a money-making exercise. Given that episodes one two and three were so abysmal, and that these new films are being made by Disney, I cannot help thinking that this seventh film will be cliched, childish pap, but that the fans will enthusiastically and uncritically lap up whatever bull they churn out. Vader is dead, so the story is complete: resurrecting him, as I fear they somehow will, would just be an insult to viewers’ intelligence and film as an art form.