ST The Marvel Cinematic Universe’s impact on new Star Wars films

I hope this topic proves interesting and worthwhile. George Lucas turns 74 today and 41 years ago when Star Wars was released it was a very different cinematic landscape than today. Lucas was essentially delivering better versions of the Marvel Cinematic Universe experience 41 years prior with a mixture of technical innovation and myth-making, genre-blending and the hero’s journey archetypes that have been tought in film schools ever since.

The world has caught up. All blockbusters have a relatively similar caliber or visual effects now. All working writers studied Campbell and now understand what Lucas did while bringing more polish to other areas of screenwriting to the table. Force powers that convincingly made the impossible seem possible now feel mundane by the powers we have convincingly seen brought to life in other properties since. Where Star Wars was previously the only convincingly rendered technological epic there are now several. Each seemingly increasing in scale and war rendering than what came previously. And all of this has lead to a situation where other properties benefit from decreased expectations and Star Wars is expected to rise above and continue to be of a tier higher.

Complicating matters is that the next generation of filmgoers has been raised on the MCU. They’re accustomed to its increased powers, comedic timing, and origin story setups aimed at establishing what each character does at an elite level, their biggest weakness, and a few dominant personality traits. Marvel stories are also a little more self-contained from property to property with new super villains coming and going with increasing stakes around the team up films. The Marvel universe isn’t restricted around only a certain aesthetic and people genuinely expect a different experience from something like Guardians than they do Captain America. Their properties feel more unique to themselves because they start around unusual powers in dynamic personalities with a few dominant traits and villains aimed to pose as great opposites to those heroes and that approach leads to the different tones within the different properties on the page. Where Star Wars on film continues to feel more like a time period of war that’s largely decided by everyday humans on both sides of that war and a handful of Force users who approach a mixture of powers remiscent of Magneto and Xavier (if Magneto could levitate more than just metal). This limits the different feels Star Wars can provide currently. All of the power users reach powers which are ultimately about reading minds, using the Force to lift objects or themselves, or opponents. Imagine X-men if every mutant became a mix of Xavier and Magneto instead of all of the unique powers explored? Palpatine’s Lightning brought something new visually to the table but it sort of sprung up without being established in the PT or OT how he developed that ability or if it was unique to him. In the MCU something like that would have been fleshed out as something he stumbled upon and perfected. Excluding lightning... The powers in Star Wars can start to feel same-y essentially and that’s a minor problem opposite the MCU which specializes in new power flavors and eye candy every 6 months.

So, what must new films in Star Wars do to separate themselves from the Marvel Cinematic Universe? What do the new films need to focus on more than Marvel does to gain an edge? Should they go even more fantasy-focused? Less? Bring more sci-fi technology to the galaxy and the complications of that? Should they embrace psychology and go heavier into drama? Should they bring more powers out? Embrace family exclusively? Less exclusively? Go heavier into strange romances than what Marvel is willing to explore? Utilize new aliens and their powers more than they do? Introduce more relics with new powers? Move away less from war factions and toward true super villains who wield ancient relics and have incredible powers and occupy worlds that way with less technology? Should they go heavier into war logistics? Where there is overlap what must Star Wars be willing to commit to more than Marvel is? Everyone has borrowed from Star Wars. What must the new films be willing to take from Marvel to ensure Star Wars continues to connect with younger audiences regardless of the impact it has on continuity or with older audiences who might be annoyed at the impact the MCU has had on film lately? With general audience members in mind and younger kids what should these New Star Wars films focus on delivering that Marvel isn’t? Where can they learn from Marvel and in which areas should they aim to focus most on to do things that Marvel likely won’t?

 

They could learn a lot from Marvel. For example, Marvel treats their famous legacy characters with the utmost respect even when they fail or even die.

 

Is death really permanent in Marvel though? I haven’t seen Infinity War so please no spoilers. I know there are apparently “deaths” but it sounds like they’re likely to be temporary as many deaths in comics seem to be.

Which brings up another area of storytelling difference. Should Star Wars go more the Game of Thrones mode (no, not R-rated content) where plot armor is heavily reduced and important characters truly can die in any given movie allowing people we thought were supporting cast members to rise and become the next heroes after the more traditionally established heroes are gone? Or, is that kind of storytelling only posisnle in multi-arc TV or novels?

Because as much as this thread is about Marvel Game of Thrones is very much the other “threat” to anyone telling genre-blending fantasy stories at present quite obviously. Game of Thrones is thriving in part because it spotted an opportunity in reveling in darkness and horror and legitimate surprise and subverting fantasy expectations by doing so.

Going in the exact opposite direction is it time for new Star Wars films to do what Filoni did and expand Force lore dramatically to the extent where the non-linear spirit world that’s already been established goes even more epic and introduces time and space issues and questions about life and existence? Would doing that help the brand find an opening between Dr. Strange and the cosmic heroes/villains of Marvel and what Star Wars does and what Game of Thrones does best? There were some complaints (when isn’t there?) about the almost Interstellar-like ending Filoni brought out but is something that epic and genre-bending perhaps what Star Wars needs right now to really go to new levels of creativity and stand out from other competitors? Building stories more around high concepts like that?

 

So continue doing what they're already doing?

 

Please not!

 

Don’t make me laugh.

 

The majority of deaths in Infinity War specifically are probably temporary. But compare something like Yondu's death in GOTG 2 to Han's death in TFA. One of them got me really emotional, the other one was the death of one of the most iconic movie characters ever.

 

Folks:

The discussion topic is focused on new Star Wars films in a MCU landscape that didn't exist at this magnitude or influence at any point in Star Wars history prior.

I really believe there's some interesting discussion possibility here around where overlap could possibly be a good thing in some areas, should be avoided in others, where it might be okay to borrow from the MCU in some ways, and where it might be instead wiser to look at the MCU and where its falling short and purposely aim to deliver there.

Citing specifics observed already in the ST, and if the moderators will allow it, some specifics observed now in the anthology films (Be careful to not discuss any known spoilers obviously about Solo here and instead just refer to general observations), we can probably find some interesting cases for what IX and other new films should aim to do differently.

Can we please have some actual discussion that goes a little more in depth on those areas with some specifics?

EDITED TO ADD:

@11-4D

See, this is an area where I see it differently. It's not that I dislike heroic sacrifice deaths. There's a place for those in Star Wars (Stuff like what Bruce Willis did in Armagedeon, Spock in WOK, The Iron Giant, Luke in TLJ, Kenobi in ANH, Walt in Gran Torino, etc) all absolutely should have a place in Star Wars when the story demands it but not all story turns do demand that.

In the example you've cited I think the purpose is more to showcase the shock and horror of patricide for the tragedy that it is, establish real stakes in the saga and the sense that anyone can die in this war, and conjure up parallels to Greek mythology where sons killing fathers occurred frequently.

Kylo Ren also matters to the larger mythology they're building, and a huge influence in the films that follow TFA, in comparison to the being truly responsible for Yondu's death (Which to me also felt a little forced on the sentimentality side due to lack of setup on the lengths he'd truly go to see him truly as a son and less like a friend or ally who was good at helping him accomplish his goals) who exited that picture. So, while a heroic death for Han might have made for a more tear-inducing send-off it's hard to imagine where it might have impacted the character of Kylo Ren in a manner reminiscent of mythology more than it did and I actually think Star Wars is at its best and stronger than Marvel when it's leaning on mythology more and falling back less on common hollywood tropes less.

 

Given how “everyone” is supposed to sympathize with Kylo based essentially on nothing, I really don’t think the point of that patricide was realism regarding the ugly truth of patricide. Realism doesn’t build a fairy tale style story of everyone investing in the punishment devoid redemption of the cold patricidal lunatic. The way they have written Kylo, and the reactions to him, is completely devoid of even a hint of realism. It says something on this point that a common argument in defense of Kylo is we aren’t supposed to apply real world standards.

 

As of this writing Kylo Ren leads the villains and turned down a second opportunity for redemption from a different person than in the first film. We can speculate that he will still be redeemed. We can observe that many fans want him to be and even talk about how it seems like some of the previous filmmakers see him as co-protagonist or the other side of the coin of Rey. However, at this point he remains a villain than even an anti-hero and the sympathy that seems to be evoked may end up being just as easily the creators utilizing our expectation for redemption against us and showing us how easily manipulative, addicted people (Addicted to the dark side and power in this case) are able to take advantage from people who believe that they can be saved (Audiences included).

 

In-universe, in the movies already released, the characters did not react to that patricide in even a remotely realistic way. That applies to Rey, but also Chewie, Leia and Luke. Therefore, the theory that they were going for realism absolutely fails to me.

 

Most good villains draw the audience in somehow and they might be doing that with him just to make him an interesting villain. We assume he'll come back to the light but at this point there are indeed more reasons to suspect it won't happen than assuming it will. The assumptions that it will are mostly based on Vader's redemption and the (potentially misplaced belief?) that they'll want to keep the Skywalker bloodline alive and that they'll want an ending that shows him changed so that it's less bleak. However, wasn't that the same happy ending logic that lead some to thinking Rey had to be a Skywalker, that Luke would survive to the end, etc, too?

I'm not sure why you're zeroing in on realism though? My argument was more that a son killing his father was a key ingredient in greek mythology and that the shock and awe of the situation was more so the audience than the characters (Just as the characters in Game of Thrones didn't react all that much to the Red Wedding or the death of Stark or the original death of John Snow in Game of Thrones) because these characters live in violent worlds where death on a massive scale is omnipresent. The shock and awe of how brutal things get is more for us in the audience than them in these worlds.

That said, Rey did react with severe emotion to why he was unable to accept his father as a father instead of some enemy of the FO who was a threat to his movement and a threat to the type of tyrant he wants to be. They did get into that briefly but characters don't often linger on loss too much in Star Wars because it's onto the next loss and the one after that until victory is found or the chances are spent.

 

I found TLJ's relentless comedy to be very Marvel-esque. The MCU has made a collective decision that audiences can't take dudes in capes and tights seriously, and so they need to provide constant jokes to remind everyone that it's ok to think this is all pretty stupid but still enjoyable. I felt that same degree of self-conscious paranoia in TLJ, like RJ was worried that people would be making fun of him and his film if he didn't make fun of it himself. The Porgs in particular represented a new degree of stupid for SW. There was nothing about them that was meant to be taken seriously.

Personally, I think that kind of humor can work for Marvel, and super hero movies in general, because their fictional universe is an immediate extension of our own, and so there needs to be some outlet for when the audience pushes back against the ridiculous. It's fine to have those moments that reassuringly say "It's ok if you're not suspending your disbelief". But SW is not part of the super hero/comic book genre, it's more traditionally considered a space opera, which requires elaborate storytelling to build a fictional universe from the ground up.

Some other moments that just felt dumb:
The opening "Yo Moma" joke
Luke tickling Rey with grass
The milk
DJ (it's weird that RJ seemed to think it was more important for him to be funny and quirky than to make sense as part of the story, very Marvel-esque)
Rose's passive agressive taser routine

And many more

 

Not really.

Luke should be compared to Odin in Thor: Ragnarok, and not Thor himself.

Odin, the all father actions has a lot of similarities when it comes to Luke's actions.

A (but not the only) problem, comes when people compare Luke, Leia and Han to Marvel heroes going through their coming of age tales.

Those legacy characters (Luke, etc) in the Sequel Trilogy are passed that point. Their counterparts are the Ancient One in Dark Strange, Odin in Thor, Black Panther's father in Black Panther, etc.

Heroes of old who made mistakes, accidently help create the current big bads, and now it's up to the new generation of heroes to help fix the old heroes mistakes.

Edit: Same thing with a younger Steve Rogers with an older Nick Fury in Winter Soldier.

 

Because you said "establish real stakes in the saga and the sense that anyone can die in this war" in reference to why the Han patricide was good in comparison to the GotG example, which was a moving death of a father figure.

Right and my point is that a more realistic shock and awe for the audience then falls flat if the narrative deprives the audience of any payoff for that brutality. It was pointless because the audience is supposed to trudge ahead almost as though nothing happened.

It's not just the reaction to the specific loss that is unrealistic (although, yeah, that was almost non-existent in TLJ). It's the lack of harsh judgment of the character (meaning the integrity, not the character as a whole) of this "monster" that murdered his loving father in cold blood. TLJ had none of that. Rey only cared, when she brought it up, about the "why," and whether she could relate to it, and then she immediately listened to him whine on other topics like anything he said had any merit at all after that. That's absurdly unrealistic. The normal reaction is just all out disgust and horror. Chewie should have embodied that. Instead he dropped Rey off with Luke's location into Kylo's arms. Leia should have embodied that. Instead she was denied a voice entirely. Luke should have embodied that. Instead he didn't mention it. Rey certainly should have embodied that because unlike those other three, she had zero initial investment into this monster as a person before he became a monster.

I disagree with his a lot. The right comparison to Odin imo is Obi in the OT. Luke's parallel is Iron Man. It all began with Luke. It all began with Iron Man. Luke didn't start out as a mentor. He's the original hero that we followed on the initial journey. Luke is the reason we're all here discussing SW at all.

 

But it's not his story anymore.

It's called Star Wars sequel trilogy, Not Luke Skywalker sequel trilogy.

Hell, George Lucas intent was for Luke to hand the reigns over for a sequel trilogy.

And now Luke is in a similar Obi Wan role for the Sequel Trilogy.

Don't get me wrong, not all mentors HAVE to die or go out with a bang. Some can operate alongside the new generation. Probably what they intend for Leia inbetween films.

Hank Pym in the Ant-Man movies is an example. Or Nick Fury himself.

But some guys are just too powerful, that you have to get rid of them for the younger generation to step up to their full potential: The Ancient One, Luke Skywalker, Odin.

Soon the same thing will apply for Iron Man in the Spider-Man Homecoming films.

 

Doesn't mean you have to destroy the character and everything he stood for. Same with Han.

 

Yes but he still carries the audience investment that was built over his original trilogy. Odin doesn't. Obi didn't in the OT. You can't erase that. It's silly for LF to pretend that it can. Iron Man is now a father figure beginning the process of passing on the torch. I'd say he got more focus than Luke so you can't make the parallel, except that's not really true. Luke was the hero with an arc in TLJ. He got the character development, not Rey. He got the hero's journey. The best parallel is truly to Iron Man.

 

I agree that comedic timing in blockbuster films seems to be increasing. Star Wars might have started this trend in a way though with ROTJ’s comedic relief Ewok scenes which provided the light fare for the kids watching while the throne room drama played out. The 1980s continued that with blockbusters like Back to the Future and Indiana Jones which incorporated comedic relief frequently. Pixar took it to new levels with Academy award winning scripts that frequently balanced thematic exploration and comedic relief and Marvel ran with it in direct comparison to Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy and some other grimdark films that took themselves deathly seriously but it’s back on the rise again. Star Trek is a great example as well. The success of these films though, including Jurassic World which also has some of this, shows that this does play well with audiences.

Porgs don’t really seem to be what you’re referring to IMO and are therefore not a great example. To me they’re not out of place with Ewoks or droid humor that’s largely physical.

In any case, I don’t think the humor in the ST has been a misstep for the general audience. It may be for some hardcore fans but that’s part of the trade off they seem to be after. What’s smarter? Appeasing Attack of the Clones fans with a tone closer to that? Or, reaching out more to people who like the humor of the Avengers films and who associate some well-timed comedic relief as a good time at the cinema? I think the latter is probably the wiser move to grow a PG13 Star Wars in a cinematic landscape aiming to appeal to the same audiences mentioned above.

The Planet of the Apes trilogy was great and I loved it but it also wasn’t seen by anywhere near the amount of people something of that quality and critical acclaim should have been. The general audience seems to want everything in their blockbusters and that “everything” now includes increased comedic timing.

 

If George had made the Sequel Trilogy 20 years ago with a forty something Mark Hamill, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

But unlike Iron Man, there is too wide a gap both in the universe, and in the real world for me not to make the parallel.

And if the sequel trilogy WAS made 25 years ago, I'd imagine we'd get a Luke storyline closer to the Iron Man-spider-man mentorship storyline.

 

I think Lucasfilm should simply focus on making great films, and not get distracted by trying to copy or emulate the MCU. Personally, I think they should also go for different age-range audiences with each film. For the sagas, appeal mostly to teens and young adults (like TFA and TLJ). For the Anthologies, appeal to a slightly older audience (like Rogue One). And for the animated shows, go for a slightly younger audience. This will ensure that the least amount of people are disappointed with, or graduate away from, the franchise.

The only bit of the MCU that's worth considering is interconnectivity. But they should be very careful about it, and avoid shrinking the universe too much, or creating individual films that don't stand on their own. The interconnections should be subtle, and should fit seamlessly into each of the films. In other words, don't be as heavy-handed about it as the MCU, but do a little bit of it to sustain interest across very different kinds of films.

 

I wouldn't make it either if RJ hadn't made Luke the character with the hero's journey that was portrayed as the big hero at the end. If Luke wasn't the Iron Man, he shouldn't have been written that way. I certainly didn't expect them to fridge Rey as the big hero to that extent, but they did. Rey is Spider Man, Luke is Iron Man.

 

I wouldn't say they "fridged" Rey at all. That's more inline to killing her off then not focusing on her.


I'll be interested to see how Marvel handles the Captain Marvel movie next year, since it's the first time they'll handle a "Heroine's Journey" onscreen.

 

I still can't believe it took this long for Feige to introduce a female-led film.

 

I know what I’m referring to, but I don’t think you do. The difference between the Porgs and other aliens/droids is that the Porgs have no purpose at all outside their comic relief. They don’t contribute to world building in any meaningful sense because they don’t interact with their environment, they aren’t characters, they don’t provide development for other characters, they are purely expendable and therefore a waste of space in a film where time spent on maintaining the suspension of disbelief is at a premium. TLJ would lose nothing besides one or two giggles if they were purged entirely. They are a net loss, and serve no purpose but to interrupt the seriousness of the film.

But I can understand that some people like that kind of thing, and that’s fine.