Captain Marvel, Wonder Woman and The Feminist Journey

The Hero's Journey has been a staple of heroic literature dating back to when sagas were sung instead of written. Some modern examples include both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and the original Star Wars movie (which I refuse to call by it's revised name). In the classic hero's journey, the hero, who is often young and inexperienced, is forced to leave his comfortable life behind and undertake a quest. Along the way he meets a mentor who teaches him. Eventually the hero and the mentor are separated and the hero has to use his new knowledge to complete the journey.

In Tolkien's novels, Gandolf sends Bilbo then Frodo on journeys. He accompanies them for a while but in the Hobbit he has to leave to go join the fight against the Necromancer (Sauron). In LotR he is killed (although he recovers). For a while Strider replaces Gandolf as Frodo's mentor but, this being a more adult book, Frodo realizes that he has to leave his companions behind. In Star Wars, Obi-wan saves Luke and whisks him off on a quest. Along the way he gives Luke a bit of training before Darth Vader turns him into a Force Ghost.

The MCU has their own version of the Hero's Journey. Let's call it the Super-Hero's Journey. It's not used in every MCU movie but it's pretty common. The biggest difference is that instead of being young and inexperienced, the hero is flawed. Instead of being forced on a journey by external events, it's the hero's own faults that leads to the journey. The role of the mentor is reduced greatly. Instead of losing his mentor, the hero hits bottom before overcoming his flaws and learning from his experiences to overcome the villain.

Iron Man, the first MCU movie, is also the prototype for the Superhero's journey. Stark hits bottom fast. One minute he's a spoiled millionaire industrialist and the next he's being held hostage in a cave and forced to lug a car battery around or he will die. He has a mentor in the cave who dies pretty fast. He also has a father-figure who betrays him. I'll come back to this later.

In Iron Man 2, Stark is on a self-destructive path, eventually getting a a drunken brawl with Rhodey before Fury sets him on the proper path. In the third movie he's obscessed with making armor and suffering from PTSD after the Avengers movie and loses his home and armor before he once again pulls himself together.

Doctor Strange goes from talented neurosurgeon to bum before the Ancient One trains him to become the Sorcerer Supreme. Thor loses his hammer and his powers until he discovers self-sacrifice. Spider-Man screws up constantly until Stark takes back his Spider-Suit then finally gets his act together.

The Black Panther is a special case. He hit bottom as hard as anyone but he's not flawed. His problems are external. His father and his mentor lied to him. This is an important point. I'll come back to it later.

So, lots of MCU movies have the Hero's Journey. Even the DCU does it with Aquaman. But both Marvel and DC have a different journey for their women. I'll call it the Feminist Journey.

A huge pint is that the heroine is not flawed so there's no need to hit bottom. The Feminist Journey is always up.

The second point is that the heroine is much more powerful than she thinks but she has a mother figure holding her back (echos of the Black Panther's father lying to him).

Finally, the heroine seems to have a mentor but he's actually her enemy.

At the beginning of Wonder Woman, Diana's mother forbid her to even train as an Amazon. Eventually her mother relents with the instruction that Dianna is to be pushed harder than anyone. She's been told that she began as a statue that the gods brought to life and that the armory has a special sword and shield to be used to fight Aries, the God of War. After learning about The Great War, Dianna takes the sword and shield and leaves to go find Aries and stop the war. Near the end of the movie we discover that her mother lied to her. She is a demi-god, the daughter of Zeus and she is the weapon against Aries, not the sword. And, Aries is not the evil German general. He's the kindly English lord who's been helping her.

In Captain Marvel, Carol is a soldier fighting for the Kree. She is trained by Yon-Rogg, her commander and mentor. The Kree are ruled by the Supreme Intelligence who appears to Carol as a mother-figure and constantly warns her about controlling her powers. During the course of the movie she discovers that she is much more powerful than she thought and that she's fighting on the wrong side. She's been told that the Skrulls are terrorists but they are just innocent victims. She discovers that her real enemy is Yon-Rogg.

So the only two superhero movies featuring a woman have the Feminist Journey. But this raises the huge question, why was Wonder Woman such a better movie? The answer is that the Feminist Journey was the A plot in Captain Marvel but it was only the B plot in Wonder Woman. The A plot in Wonder Woman was stopping the German general from using nerve gas on the English and extending the war. The final denouement and CGI battle at the end almost seemed tacked on. In contrast, Captain Marvel put it's Feminist Journey front and center.

The biggest problem with the Feminist Journey is that flawless heroes (or heroines) are kind of boring. Its the flaws that make the heroes interesting.

Why Stark Had to Die

Spoilers ahead for Avengers:Endgame, but you probably heard about this part anyway.

At the climax of Avengers: Endgame, Thanos raised hand, announces, "I am inevitable" and snaps his fingers, intending to remove half of all life in the universe and all memory of what is missing. Nothing happens. Then Tony Stark raises his hand, showing that he took the Infinity Stones while Thanos was distracted. Stark says, "I am Iron Man" and snaps his fingers, causing Thanos and his minions to go to dust. But the effort of using the Infinity Gauntlet was too much and Stark died.

Since then, fans have been saying, "But he didn't have to die, he could have just...". They are all wrong. We know they are wrong Doctor Strange told us so. He used the time stone to look at possible outcomes and the Avengers only won in a single one of them. So, sorry guys, whatever your theory is, it didn't work.

Understand just how powerful Thanos was and how skilfull a fighter he could be. In Avengers: Infinity War he beat the Hulk without drawing strength from the power stone. That's in keeping with the comics where he defeated Thor and the Thing with little effort. He was also inventive. He punched Captain Marvel in the head with no effect (showing how over-powered she is). Without missing a beat, he pulled the power stone from the Gauntlet and used it to blast her. As Thanos said, he was inevitable. Any resolution short of killing him would only be temporary and even decapitation didn't stop a younger version of Thanos from appearing to claim the Gauntlet.

"But Stark didn't have to do a full finger-snap!" Could Stark have done something less and survived? Probably not. The finger-snap represented using the Gauntlet to alter reality. It doesn't matter if you killed half of all life or just ordered a turkey sandwich, you still altered reality. When Thanos used the stones to destroy themselves it released an energy blast comparable to when he dusted half of all life, even though it was a much more localized event. Think of the Gauntlet as a genie granting three wishes.

And that ignores the cost of just putting the Gauntlet on. Every time Thanos added a stone you could see him wince. He did it again when he put the Nano Gauntlet on and when he replaced the power stone after blasting Captain Marvel. Compare that to what happened when the Hulk put the Gauntlet on. His arm was burnt up to his neck and he collapsed. And that was just from wearing it. The finger snap broke his arm. We'd been told that the Gauntlet was generating a lot of radiation, particularly in the gamma range. In the comics the Hulk practically feeds on gamma waves. In the MCU, he still felt that he'd have some sort of immunity. So trying to use the Gauntlet is death to a regular person.

"Wouldn't Stark's armor protect him from the radiation?" This is a pretty dumb question but I've still seen it. We already saw that the Hulk was horribly burnt using a Gauntlet that Stark made especially for the stones. Do you really thing that his nano-suit could improvise something more protective on-the-fly? No, Stark received a lethal dose of radiation as soon as he assembled the Gauntlet. It was hidden by his armor but you could see it on his face.

One final thought, part-way through the fight Stark asked Doctor Strange if this was the one probability where they win? Strange refused to say because telling Stark would change the outcome. That's probably because if he knew they were going to win, Stark would get over-confident and try to avoid his inevitable death. But later, moments before Stark stole the stones from Thanos, Strange held up one finger indicating that this was the one reality where they won. Stark needed that confirmation. He must have known that wearing the Gauntlet would kill him and he needed to know that his sacrifice wasn't in vain.

Avengers: Endgame - the capstone to the MCU

I'm writing this a week after Avengers:Endgame was released. Since it smashed all box office records, I'm going to assume than anyone who stumbles across this blog has seen the movie and doesn't care about spoiler. You've been warned.

I'm not going to talk about Easter eggs or call-backs. I'm going to talk about the character arcs of the last 11 years and how this movie resolves them for the six original Avengers. This is a much more personal movie than Avengers: Infinity War. Until the final fight it really features just the six original Avengers plus Ant-Man, Rocket and Nebula plus Captain Marvel who is more of a cameo than a real presence.

The original crew can be divided into the big three and the rest. The big three, Iron Man, Thor and Captain America, have all had three solo movies plus the four Avengers movies. We got to know all three and we can appreciate the closure that Endgame provided for them.

First is Iron Man, Tony Stark. The key to his character is daddy issues. In the first Iron Man movie we see that he inherited Stark Industries from his father. His father's partner became a surrogate father for Tony but then betrayed him. In the second Iron Man movie, we actually meet his father. Tony has recreated his father's Stark Expo (modeled on the 1964-5 New York World's Fair). The plot concerns Tony's attempt to understand a message his father left for him. In the third Iron Man movie and in Spider-Man Homecoming, Tony acts as a surrogate father for lonely teenagers. In Captain America: Civil War, he creates a technology to relive and change memories just so he can say goodbye to his father.

In Endgame, Tony gets to do this for real. He travels back to 1970 and meets his father and gives him the hug he's wanted to give him for 30-odd years. He also proves that he can be a better father than his father was.

Thor's character is all about failure and trying to live up to impossible expectations. In the first Thor movie his father essentially disowns him and he nearly kills himself trying to prove that he's worthy. In the second movie his mother is killed and his brother, Loki, appears to have been killed. After seeing a vision of Ragnarok in the second Avengers movie, he spends years trying to prevent it. He appears to have succeeded at the beginning of the third Thor movie but then things go very wrong. His father dies, a sister he didn't know about appears and destroys his hammer. He's beaten in an arena by the Hulk. When he finally escapes he realizes that he has to bring Ragnarok about himself in order to save the people of Asgard. He manages to evacuate them in a pair of space ships only to be attacked by Thanos where Loki is killed (again) and half of the surviving Asgardians are killed. Thor devotes himself to getting a weapon capable of killing Thanos. In the process he undergoes great pain and suffering, nearly dying. He finally appears in the nick of time only to fail because he wanted Thanos to gloat so he didn't kill Thanos immediately.

In Endgame, Thor is a drunken couch potato, wallowing in his own failure. He's already had a chance to say his goodbyes to his father (in a vision) but he talks to his mother who tells him that it's alright to fail. He's also able to call his hammer, proving that he's still worthy, even after his failures. By the end of Endgame he's got his confidence back and is ready to go adventuring again.

I want to note what a great job Chris Hemsworth did in this movie.

Captain America's character arc is easy He found the love of his life then lost her, being frozen for decades. He tried a relationship with someone else but it didn't work out and he was alone. During Endgame he got to see his true love through a venitian blind. When he traveled back in time again, he went back to the time he'd been separated from Peggy, married her and grew old with her.

The Black Widow appeared in seven movies. Except for her friendships with various Avengers, particularly Bruce Banner and Hawkeye she is never shown to have any close ties. She spent a lot of time worrying about "the red on her ledger" meaning people she'd killed as a spy. This gave her a chance to redeem herself. She sacrificed herself so half of the universe could live again.

The Hulk had six appearances including his own solo movie. In his movie he was more than a "rage monster". He made tools, specifically shields. And he said a couple of words. He hadn't changed much in the first two Avengers movies but his relationship with Banner was changing. In the first Avengers movie we discovered that Banner could change at will because "he was always angry". In the second Avengers movie the Black Widow was able to coax him to change back to Banner as needed. The big change came in Thor: Ragnarok when he was far more intelligent.

In Infinity War, Thanos beat him and he refused to come out. The big surprise was in Endgame when we found that the Hulk and Banner had merged into a smart Hulk. This happened in the comics several times and that version of the Hulk in known as the Professor.

Hawkeye only appeared in three Avengers movies plus a cameo in the first Thor movie. Most of what we know about him was from the second Avengers movie where we found out that he had a wife and kids. He sat out Infinity War and Endgame begins with his family going to dust. Hawkeye becomes a vigilante before the Black Widow recruits him for the team again. By the end his family is restored and, presumably, he settles down with them again.

While not an Avenger, Nebula finished a character arc that started in Guardians of the Galaxy. She progressed from Thanos's devoted daughter and killing machine to a caring person. We even got to see her with her younger version so we could see how much she'd changed. Her character arc essentially followed her sister Gamora but then, in a time travel twist, she led an earlier Gamora to change.

One final observation. At the end of Infinity War, Fury was paging Captain Marvel. This was really a red herring. Outside of rescuing Stark and Nebula from a disabled space ship she contributed nothing to the plot. The space rescue  was engineered to let Tony record a heart-wrenching farewell to Pepper before Captain Marvel rescued him. She was part of the initial attack on Thanos but Thor was the more important one there. She was just present. The she left because she had more important things to do. She showed up again during the big battle but it's unclear if she really added much. She was just one of dozens of combatants. She was also really annoying. I hope this isn't the future of the MCU.

On the other hand, I'd been afraid that she'd have a bigger part and ruin Endgame so I was glad to see as little as possible of her.

The Problems with the 12th Doctor

So, it's been months since the 13th Doctor appeared. What to make of her?

I'll admit, I don't like her. This isn't a "I'm angry as hell that you tampered with the Doctor" feeling. Rather it's "I don't care enough about this version of the Doctor to bother watching the show." feeling. It's taken me some time to figure out what's wrong with the show.

The big problem is that we're not seeing the Doctor. We're seeing someone claiming to be the Doctor. There was one scene that was shown multiple times in ads where someone asks who's in charge and the companions point to the Doctor and say, "She is!". And there's the problem. No one EVER had to ask who was in charge with earlier Doctors. He strode into a situation and took control. There was one exception to that - Peter Capaldi's Doctor spent his first two seasons moping around and people sometimes assumed that Clara was in charge. I nearly stopped watching the show then, too. I'm pointing that out so people don't accuse me of disliking the 13th doctor because she's played by a woman.

But I do dislike her because she's played by Jodie Whitaker. The role calls for someone who can chew the scenery and Whitaker just doesn't have it in her.

At first I thought it was because she's saddled with too many bland companions but the 10th and 11th Doctors had Rose and her mother to compete with. The 12th Doctor had Amy, Rory and River, all strong characters (well, Rory grew into one), but the Doctor was never overshadowed by his companions.

The companions all had a lot more character, too. They had to stand up to David Tennant or Matt Smith chewing the scenery. The current crop are all featureless, distinguished only by their gender and ethnicity.

Then there are the historical episodes.

Most of Doctor Who takes place in the present, the future or on distant planets. Often it's a combination of two. Occasionally they work historic events into the plot. Matt Smith's Doctor used the Moon Landing to plant a message to defeat some aliens. The 5th Doctor started the Great Fire of London. The coronation of Queen Elizabeth II was the backdrop for another episode. The Doctor has also met numerous historical figures. He met Queen Victoria and had an affair with Elizabeth I. He helped Churchill fight off the Daleks.

So why did it feel so off when he met Rosa Parks?

Because they weren't about to have Rosa Parks meet a giant insect like Vincent Van Gogh did. Or get chased by a rubber monster like Elizabeth I. Doctor Who episodes are, by their very nature, a departure from reality. They can be goofy or horrifying but the one thing they are not is an episode of Witness to History. But that's what they tried to become. So they introduced a space-bigot who wanted to stop Parks from starting the Civil Rights movement. The point of the episode was to bask in the reflected glory of Rosa Parks. "Look, we're showing a civil rights pioneer, aren't we wonderful?"

But it's a poor fit, like having Krusty the Clown play MacBeth.

Other episodes were ok in a "I'll watch it if nothing else is on" way but the historic episodes should never have been considered.

So, what needs to be done?

First get rid of showruner Chris Chibnal, All of the problems can be laid at his feet. The recast the Doctor and get a new set of companions. And go back to having a story arc.

It doesn't matter if the next Doctor is a man or woman as long as it's a strong actor who can chew scenery. They proved that with Missy. I suspect that, like Missy, an older actress would work better in the part. And it has to be someone who can spout off techno-babble with a straight face.

Why I'm Apathetic About Seeing Captain Marvel

I'll probably see Captain Marvel, mainly because she'll be in Avengers: End Game but I'm just not feeling the love for it. Here's why:

Brie Larson. The star is outspoken and Woke. She's said that the movie isn't for 40-year-old white guys and she probably doesn't think it's for 64-year-old white guys, either. But that's only a minor complaint. I ignore a lot of dumb things that actors say ad watch their movies anyway.

The Character. I grew up on Marvel Comics during the Lee/Kirby age. I've got the issue where they introduced Captain Marr-Vell of the Kree Space Force. When I think of the character, I think of him in his red and blue costume fighting Thanos. When I think of Carol Danvers I think of her in her black costume with the lightening bolt and her long blond hair. I've only read a few comics with Carol as Captain Marvel and I didn't care for them.

They Changed the Character. From what's come out so far, they writers threw everything in the comics out the window and started from scratch. That's very risky. All of the other characters have had a relationship to their comic origin. By eliminating that they are trying to substitute an all new character with a familiar name. They did at least use the Kree. They added in the Skrulls who have a long history of enmity with the Kree but have nothing to do with Marvel's origin.

Social Justice. A few years ago the Powers That Be at Marvel Comics decided to eliminate all of their major white male characters and replace them with a new set of minorities and women. Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel suddenly became the flagship of this movement. Fans hated it. Sales plummeted leading to DC beating Marvel in sales for the first time in decades. My fear is that the whole social justice movement at Marvel Comics came from the Disney take-over and that the Captain Marvel movie is the MCU version of this. Movies haev a much longer lead time than comic books so it could have taken until now for Disney's influence to show up in the MCU. Promos that say Captain Marvel will take her place as the most powerful hero in the MCU seem to back that up.

The Trailers. I've been having misgivings since they announced the movie but I had misgivings when they announced Iron Man, The Guardians and Ant Man. The trailers for all three made me want to see the movies. The Captain Marvel trailers haven't done that. I've seen her flying around, in a place and on her own, I've seen her with some Kree and with a young Nick Fury, I've seen her punching out Skrulls but I haven't seen anything that makes me want to see more. I'm afraid that the movie will just be a long bore with Carol as a Mary Sue.

The worst thing about this is that I'm beginning to lose faith in Avengers: End Game because Captain Marvel might fly in and ruin it.

So the big question, after messing up the Star Wars universe, will Disney mess up the MCU?

Captain Marvel

The premiere of Captain Marvel is still two weeks away but people are already panning it. There are good reasons to be wary of this movie.

This is the least-established character that Marvel has featured to date. There have been seven characters named Captain Marvel in the Marvel Universe although three came and went pretty fast. It appears that the movie will have two of them, Mar-Vell, a captain in the Kree space force and Carol Danvers, a pilot in the US Air Force.

Carol Danvers has her own complicated history. She started out as the head of security at an Air Force base that Mar-Vell infiltrated. After being discharged for gross incompetence (seriously, she was the Sergent Shultz of the Air Force) she became editor of Marvel's version of Ms Magazine and, on the side, she was Ms Marvel. As Ms Marvel, she had the powers of Captain Marvel but only half the uniform. Her legs and stomach were exposed (the artists had a lot of trouble remembering the stomach cut-outs so they eliminated them fairly quickly). She also had multiple personalities. Once that was resolved, she got a spiffy black costume with a lightening bolt across her chest. He comic didn't last long and she moved on to the Avengers. Later she gave birth to an alien from a different dimension then married him and moved to his dimension (this was even creepier than it sounds here). She returned only to have her powers and memory stolen by Rogue who eventually joined the X-Men. Some aliens experimented on her, giving her cosmic powers. She called herself Binary and went off with a crew of aliens. When she returned she lost most of her cosmic powers but had her old Ms Marvel powers back. Calling herself Warbird, she rejoined the Avengers and developed a drinking habit.

Years later she surfaced again as Ms Marvel and got her own comic. A few years later she changed her name to Captain Marvel and adopted a version of his costume.

As Marvel changed its focus to Diversity all the time, she became the flagship character. She also cut her hair short and became sexually ambiguous. What she did not become was popular but regardless of that, she was pushed as Marvel's flagship character.

So we have the role of Captain Marvel and the character of Carol Danvers, both of which are very complicated that the movie has to deal with. There's strike one.

And the character is not very popular with fans nor have any of the trailers created much excitement. Advanced publicity indicating that Captain Marvel will be the most powerful hero in the MCU (and possibly a Mary Sue) is part of this. That's strike two.

Strike three comes from the star, Brie Larson who went on a publicity tour for the movie with a chip on her shoulder. She will not allow herself to be interviewed by a straight, white reporter. She's also critical of reviewers (and anyone else) who didn't like A Wrinkle in Time or the Ghostbusters reboot. It's hard to be excited about a movie when the star has told you that you don't deserve to have an opinion.

Marvel's projections for the opening weekend have dropped accordingly. At one point, based mainly on it being Marvel's first movie with a female lead, they were projecting $180-$200 million for the opening weekend. Then they dropped the projections to $160 million and now to $100 million. That's added a lot of fuel to suspicions that it's going to be a bad movie.

So, will this be the MCU version of Solo? No.

For one thing, it's not suffering from bloated expectations as Solo was. That's reflected in its budget. Disney does not release its budgets but the rumor is that it was budgeted somewhere in the $135-$150 million range. That's similar to Ant Man and less than Ant Man and the Wasp. It's still a lot of money but it lowers the bar a lot. I believe that the Incredible Hulk was Marvel's lowest-grossing movie to date and it still brought in $263 million worldwide. The Incredible Hulk is also one of the weakest movies in the MCU and it came out before the MCU was really a thing. So that establishes a low bar that Captain Marvel has to clear to be a success.

That doesn't mean it will be a good movie, though.

What Happened to Star Wars

I'm late to this party but I'm going to weigh in anyhow. Last Spring Solo, the 4th Star Wars movie managed to lose money. How did that happen?

I've seen a lot of arguing back and forth about over-saturation. This was the 4th Star Wars move released in 3 1/2 years and it came out just a few months after The Last Jedi. Yes, Marvel manages to release 2-3 movies a year and they are all hits. But Marvel does it by managing their expectations and by differentiating their movies. 2018 saw The Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War, and Ant Man and the Wasp. They also Released Thor: Ragnarok in late 2017. And they were all huge successes. So what did Marvel do differently?

Marvel manages to release so many movies because they are all different in both tone and content. Thor was mainly improvisation directed by someone who specializes in comedy. Ant Man and the Wasp was sort of a heist movie with its own comedic elements. Black Panther was unique. Yes, the title character wears a costume but the story was closer to the Lion King than a comic book and no one has ever done a movie featuring Africans in such a positive light. Avengers: Infinity War was the culmination of a decade of story-telling. It should have gotten a Best Picture nomination but the Academy was doing well to nominate Black Panther. Nominating two comic book movies is beyond them.

Back in Star Wars, Disney released two sequels that killed off all the survivors of he original trilogy and they released two prequels that took place between the first trilogy and the first set of prequels. Disney can't let go of the original movie. The fact that they are making the stand-alone movies around the original says everything about their new trilogy. It's not strong enough to spawn it's own spin-off stories. So they are doing spin-offs and prequels to a movie that came out over 40 years ago. Given that and that Han Solo was more of a supporting character than the star, Disney should have tempered their expectations. Ant Man and the Wasp had a budget of around $175 million and grossed $622 million world-wide. So if was a big hit. In contrast, Solo had a budget of over $400 million (more like a half billion after publicity) and only grossed $392 million. If Disney had kept Solo to a budget similar to Ant Man and the Wasp's then it would have made a profit.

The Disney Star Wars movies all have a sameness to them that the Marvel movies don't. There's going to be fights on exotic planets with blasters and there's going to be a fight between space ships. There will be droids who act human. And there will be a helping of diversity that distracts from good story telling. That's how Marvel avoids saturation.

Even more important, the Marvel movies are better. Yes, there are ones like the first two Thor movies that don't hold up very well but they are still more enjoyable to watch for the 6th time than The Force Awakens is for the second time. Let's be honest, The Force Awakens was nothing but a bunch of scenes from the original trilogy recycled with a Mary Sue and a black character thrown in for diversity and topped off with a heaping helping of coincidences. There were all sorts of signs and portents but none of them meant a thing. Director J. J. Abrams just threw them in and left it to his successor to make sense of them. Rather than doing that, The Last Jedi threw them away while congratulating itself on subverting expectations. After that sunk in, people were in no mood for more Star Wars.

Solo might have done better if it had been released later but it came out while the after taste of The Last Jedi was still lingering in people's mouths.

Then there's Solo itself. It's just not engaging and it's way too long. Most movies are have three acts. Solo has four. First he escapes from the planet he was raised on but he leaves his girlfriend behind. Then we see him as a storm trooper who realizes a heist is about to happen and wants in (picking up Chewie along the way). The heist goes bad and most of the colorful characters we've just met die. So then we have another heist. Then we finally have a lengthy shoot-out where everyone betrays everyone else. And I hope you didn't care about anyone who wasn't in the original trilogy because they're all going to die. Plus they spent a lot of effort answering questions that no one even thought to ask (how did Han get the name "Solo"? How did he learn to fly?, etc)

This was not a movie that was going to gross a billion dollars. It only did as well as it did because of the Star Wars name attached. If the names had been changed to make it generic it would probably have grossed half what it did.

The final difference between Marvel and Star Wars is that Marvel respects their fans and makes movies for them. Disney seems to be embarrassed by Star Wars fans. They have made it clear that they are making movies for a different fan base in mind, one that's move diverse. Their problem is that the fans they want don't exist in the numbers they need.