Brentai wrote:One of the RLM guys keeps making the argument that Star Wars just isn't deep enough to support a Marvel-like release cycle and I have to agree with that. You say "a Marvel movie" like it's one series, but you're plumbing the whole depth of a publisher's near-century of output there, and it can be nearly any genre in the world you want. You go from modern robot-man to crazy norse space-god to WW2-era soldier to comedy rock-epic to street-level coming of age story to WIZARD to etc. etc. et cetera. Star Wars is pretty much one thing, World War II in Space (ft. Wizard Knights), and there's a lot of stuff dangling off of that skeleton but it can still only support so much.
My knowledge of Marvel is considerably greater than my knowledge of extended Star Wars lore, but it sure seems like the EU managed to support quite a lot of stories over the past 40 years. Many of them published by Marvel.
There's no reason why
Star Wars has to be limited to one story, and condemned to repeat that story over and over again. There's no reason why it can't support the diversity of narratives in the MCU.
Especially since, y'know, you're kinda vastly overstating the diversity of narratives in the MCU. You can dress up "snarky, arrogant guy with daddy issues (possibly played by an actor named Chris) faces an ironic comeuppance, has to rethink his life, find a family, and then fight [a big CG monster/somebody who is dressed in a high-tech suit similar to the hero's]" in all kinds of different genre trappings, but there is a fuck of a lot of overlap
in the characters, tone, and major plot beats of the Marvel movies.
And I say that, it should go without saying, as a fan
the Star Wars universe tell different stories with different characters and different genre trappings? The only reason is because Disney's holding the reins too tightly.
And even considering that, they at least seem to be considering
it -- the selection of Mangold implies they think they can do a movie like Logan; the selection of Benioff and Weiss implies they think they can do a series like Game of Thrones; the selection of Lord and Miller implied that they thought they could do a movie like 21 Jump Street, until they punked out.
Again, I'm not begging the question here; I'm a lifelong Marvel fan and I know
how deep and rich Marvel's history is and how many incredibly talented people have contributed to that success. Indeed, here is a thing I wrote right after seeing Deadpool 2:
Thad wrote:So I wonder if Deadpool 2 means that my signed copy of the first appearance of Zeitgeist is worth a lot of money now.
That's a joke, but...it is a joke that relies on the true fact that I own that signed comic.
I don't know Star Wars like I know Marvel. I've seen the movies with numbers in them, a few episodes of both Clone Wars cartoons and all of Rebels, played KotOR, KotOR 2, and Shadows of the Empire, and read a handful of comics.
But I know there have been a whole lot of Star Wars ancillary media.
And I also know that, as much Marvel lore as there is, the movies have mostly used it as a jumping-off point, not adapted it straight across.
Sure, the first act of Iron Man is straight off the page. Most of the origin stories are. But Captain America looked a lot more like The Rocketeer than any Cap comics from the 1940s. How much did Winter Soldier, Iron Man 3, Civil War, Thor: Ragnarok, Black Panther, or Infinity War look like the comics they were based on? Switching over to Fox, how much did Logan or Legion?
You know how many people read the original 1969 Guardians of the Galaxy and thought, "You know who should play Yondu if they make this into a movie? Michael Rooker."? Zero. The answer is zero. And that's not because Michael Rooker was 14 years old at the time; it is because the character of Yondu from the movies is not recognizable as the same character from the comics.
Marvel's got a hell of a lot of great characters, and it's used those characters to tell a hell of a lot of great stories. The movies (both from Marvel and Fox -- and New Line, too, if we want to go back to Blade) often simplify or completely change those stories -- and that's fine; that's led to quite a bit of critical and financial success, and, again, I'm a fan. But I don't think it's quite right to say that the Marvel films are successful because they have such a rich base to draw from. I don't need to tell you how big a fan I am of Kirby and Simonson and the rest, and I would never deny the importance of their contribution to the Marvel films. (Hell, I'm likelier to go off on a tangent about how unfair it is that Billy Graham
didn't get a credit on Black Panther and Wally Wood didn't get one on Daredevil.) But
it's also Joss Whedon and James Gunn and Taika Waititi and the Russo Brothers, and Downey and Evans and Hemsworth, and everybody else involved in the movies, who've made the Marvel Universe their own.
And if you throw similar talent at Star Wars, I really don't see any reason why you can't get similar quality or success.
Hell, I just watched a movie where the second-billed character was Cable
, and I enjoyed the fuck out of it. Having great source material helps make a great movie, but it's clearly optional.