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

I should elaborate on what I mean by "flagship" characters; these are the characters that are iconic in the realm of pop culture, not just the main characters of their current story. You can't force a character to be iconic in the same way that Darth Vader or Yoda became universally adored by the public. Just because the roles of characters have been severely diminished or excised entirely doesn't mean that the characters are any less recognizable.

There was a general expectation from fans and casual viewers to see these iconic characters return to form. IMO they tried to push the next generation of characters without having them build up enough good will with the fans. So to bring this back around to Marvel, the comics actually are guilty of this by recasting a superhero with a new alter ego, which most of the time pales to the original. Despite the novelty, they fail to realize that fans like the characters themselves and not just the surface level powers and costumes. Notably Marvel HASN'T done this with the movies yet.

 

I would say that the equivalence is more like Thor, Captain America, Iron Man and the Hulk are the mentors, the first generation of Avengers that made everyone get emotionally invested in the MCU, the ones that were the flagship of the MCU for phases 1 and 2, and then they passed the torch to Vision, Spiderman, Scarlet Witch, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange etc.

There is a reason why Iron Man, Captain America and Thor have 3 movies each.

 

The Marvel heroes are different because they aren't one generation passing on anything in terms of knowlegde or wisdom to the next (apart from Iron Man and Spiderman). Also it's arguable that the original marvel heroes have even reached their ROTJ yet.

 

Marvel heroes are also different because their default is a solo story. In Star Wars the default is a collective story. It's impossible to isolate Star Wars characters in the same way you can with Marvel characters. Taking solo characters and combining them with other solo characters is far more appealing that taking characters out of a collective and giving them a solo story.

 

Thank goodness TPTB are not judging characters based on memes then.

Otherwise, the sequel trilogy would star Admiral Ackbar.

 

Simply put, the MCU is about gods and SW is about people. I hope LFL maintains that distinction.

 

Marvel and Star Wars heroes are both expressions of the same sorts of mythic archetypes. The whole point of the Marvel ethos is that these characters embody the qualities of both gods and people. So for example a hero like Spider-Man has a mythic, god-like quality to him but also a relatable, human side--same as Luke Skywalker. When Luke performs superhuman feats of heroism then he is acting in the capacity of a god-like figure whose acts are worthy of being etched in the heavens, but when he is expressing emotions like love and grief and uncertainty then he is acting in the capacity of a human. The idea is that everyone single one of us contains within us this dual nature, this potentiality. That's why humans have always connected to such myths.

 

I don't disagree with that. My dichotomy was deliberately simplistic. To add some nuance, I would argue that the MCU, stylistically, has a much heavier emphasis on the god-like attributes of people than Star Wars does. And that difference in emphasis is responsible for the primary tonal and stylistic difference between the franchises. The MCU's city-crushing heroes give the films a more godlike tenor, while Star Wars' small object-moving heroes, and guerilla-stypes, give the films a more human tenor.

It's a matter of emphasis. And I want Star Wars to remain a lot more grounded in humanity than the MCU.

 

The differences are ones of themeatic style and tone. MCU films are comic books films, whilst SW films aren't. They are unique and distinct varieties of fantasy.

 

Better him than Kylo Ren.

 

Luke, Leia etc are not ordinary people. Especially the Force users in the saga. They are too, like superheroes, in a sense. And that's fine. It's not what they can fo with the Force that makes us relate to them and love them and sympathize with their adventures and misfortunes. It's who they are as characters. However, if I had to choose between an all powerful ensemble of Jedi with super powers, and a new order of things where we eradicate force users and lightsabers and crazy force powers from the Star Wars universe, then I would choose the former in a nanosecond. That's because the latter, is not Star Wars anymore. It's just a movie or tv show with blasters and weird aliens. Aka any other random sci-fi movie.

On topic, I saw Thor Ragnarok and Infinity War for the second time around, because they have them on Netflix these days. I really wish that the ST could evoke the same feelings to me as these movies did. The work done with the development of the plot and the characters is phenomenal. Star Wars has a lot to learn, I really wish they had started making the anthology movies and other projects before they got around to making the ST, which holds a more important place in the franchise.

 

Even characters like Han Solo are like superheroes, in the same way Black Widow or Hawkeye are superheroes. They don't technically have superpowers, but they still function more or less as if they do. Black Widow's power is that she's a superspy, Hawkeye's power is that he's a super-archer, Han Solo's power is that he's a super space cowboy. Just like the rest, he even has his own iconic outfit which immediately identifies him with the larger-than-life archetype he represents.

And what about Harrison Ford's other most famous character? In his civilian identity of Dr. Henry Jones he's a mild-mannered, bespectacled college professor. But when he throws on his leather jacket, whip, and fedora, he's suddenly transformed into the globe-trotting, two-fisted adventurer and hero, Indiana Jones! In Temple of Doom he even takes on his own ward who doubles as his child sidekick, à la Batman. All the superhero tropes are well in force here. It's just a question of semantics.

 

Aquamans a huge hit and in with a good shout of hitting a billion dollars.Time to change the title of the thread to DC's influence of the SW universe?

 

When I go to boxofficemojo it says 606 m$ foreign for Aquaman. When I sum up the entries it's around 367?
Did they make a mistake?

 

One of the moments that stuck with me from the last old EU book with Luke, Han and Leia, Crucible, is Leia musing that Han has kept up with her and Luke for 45 years without having the Force.

 

Your concept of what is, and isn't, Star Wars is so narrow that I absolutely can't relate to it. Sorry, but I prefer the wider, sandbox definition of Star Wars for the new LFL era. Star Wars is the GFFA. The setting. And you can do almost anything you want within that. That's exciting to me, and will keep the franchise from becoming stale, or repeating old formulas and dynamics over and over again.

 

Not all individual grosses from the different countries are up to date. They usually only update the sum so that is correct.

 

I think what DF is trying to say is that if they want to take the force/lightsabers and Jedi out of Star Wars COMPLETELY he would choose the former. There was no force use in Solo but yet to me it still felt like Star Wars. If they release films and projects after the saga concludes that do not ever feature concepts that SW is known for, then yes, I too would feel like it wasn't Star Wars anymore.

 

Got it. But that’s such an extreme and unlikely hypothetical that it’s almost meaningless. Also, DF stated quite clearly that SW without the force or force wielders is not really SW, but just another sci fi series with blasters. I disagree with that, as it comes close to disqualifying Solo and Rogue One, which to me, feel far more like SW than the ST (and that has little to do with Chirrut or Maul). For me, SW is at its core a setting, an aesthetic, and a hopeful philosophy. That’s the core. Lightsabers and force sensitivity are simply parts of some SW stories, and IMO, need not be in everything. Or even the majority of output. As long as it looks like Star Wars, is set in the GFFA and isn’t cynical? It’s Star Wars.

 

I also prefer the wider, sandbox definition of Star Wars, as you should have known already. I love Rogue One, I was excited to play Star Wars 1313 before it got cancelled, and the most exciting Star Wars news I read between 2005 and 2019 had been the 100 episode live action series developed by George Lucas and set between III and IV. And then he sold everything to Disney, which I consider his only serious mistake regarding Star Wars in general.

You misinterpreted "getting rid entirely of The Force as we know it and lightsabers and Jedi and Force users" as "becoming stale and repeating old formulas". I don't want to see Episode IV again. I don't want to see any identical movie to a previous one. But I sure as hell would prefer a cheap rehashed movie (some argue that TFA is such a movie) than never getting a movie again with all the above. Cause the latter, is not Star Wars to me.

My beloved @wobbits explained it better than I could have.

Star Wars Resistance
Rogue One
TFA
TLJ
SOLO

Add all the scenes that have lightsabers and/or Force users in the 5 above projects, and then tell me that a fear of completely moving away from what Star Wars means and has meant for 40 years, is extreme and unlikely hypothetical. Add to that the current regime that Jedi and Sith are stale and the Force can be used by everyone and all that other philosophical grey stuff portrayed in TLJ, and then tell me the same.

Rogue One would feel much less like Star Wars if it didn't have Chirrut Imwe and Vader's scene, I am sorry. It had the philosophy you speak of, partially because of all the scenes with Chirrut and the lines and settings that had to do directly with The Force (kyber crystals, temples, may the Force be with you etc). You need all the pieces of the puzzle.

I personally think that at least The Force needs to be in almost every SW movie/project, and that lightsabers should be in most.

 

I think it’s good to have a bit of the force in Star Wars too, Chirrut despite not being a real Jedi is maybe my favorite example of what a Jedi could or should be.

That said I don’t mind at all if the force or lightsabers are not the focus or are used sparingly like in RO and Solo. I’m thinking both The Mandalorian and The Cassian show may be similar in that they don’t feature much of either. Works for me.

 

A fear of completely moving away from what Star Wars means and has meant for 40 years, is an extreme and unlikely hypothetical.

 

No, it's not. It is based on what is already happening. And I did not even mention the Mandalorian and the Cassian Andor series in my previous post. Star Wars means lightsabers and The Force, there is no Star Wars if these are completely eradicated.

 

And as I’ve said:

1. That’s a narrow view of Star Wars that I disagree with. To me, Star Wars is about a specific setting and a hopeful philosophy. There were no lightsabers in RO until the end, and there was no force or lightsabers in Solo until the end. And both felt more akin to Star Wars than the ST, for me, before lightsabers and the force ever showed up.

2. More importantly to your point, it’s extremely unlikely that the force and lightsabers will no longer feature in Star Wars, and there are no indications that this will be the case. So yes. It’s objectively an extreme and unlikely hypothetical.

 

yeah Star Wars is not only about lightsabers and the force, lol

and no one is saying they should be completely eradicated, only that not every story needs to center only around them.