A masterclass on how NOT to use "mystery boxes"

Or mystery for the sake of mystery as a plot device the way Abrams did. Perhaps the best example that comes to mind of how to properly use a mystery for the sake of mystery is the glowing briefcase in Pulp Fiction. It's an intriguing mystery that still has people guessing and theorizing about it almost 3 decades later even though there is ultimately no answer. Most importantly though this mystery had no barring on the story or character development. Of course that's just one of the key areas where Jar Jar utterly failed & shot this trilogy in the foot from the start. He made the poor decision to craft a haphazard narrative around not one, but numerous "empty" mysteries for the sake of mystery that were key to filling in crucial story and character development and the results were a disastrous, disjointed mess.