Yes, Star Wars tapped powerful archetypes, but not the deepest archetype (which Jung called the Self), despite there being a tenuous, rather caricatural link through the idea of the 'Force.' The Self (mind-at-large) is the subject of religious symbolism. Star Wars was pretty good at tapping the archetypal Hero's journey (the whirlpool's little journey), the old-wise-man archetype, the shadow, etc. And Lucas did it on the cheap: he just read Joseph Campbell's books and used them as a template. Campbell had already mapped out the key elements from his study of ancient mythology, including religious mythology. Star Wars was just a re-clothing of ancient 'scripture.' No wonder it was such immediate success.
Will Star Wars still be popular a thousand years from now, you think?
I wonder to what extent Christian scripture isn't itself a re-clothing of prior tradition that was passed on orally or in writing? It has obvious connections with Judaism, but then Judaism didn't arise in a vacuum either. Themes like the hero, sacrificer and rescuer/redeemer can unfold in ordinary life, and exemplars may be celebrated in religion, politics, art and literature, albeit that their stories may be distorted, exaggerated or embellished upon. Complete rogues may strive to project such images of themselves, and it's a standard ploy to sell (or buy) conformance with archetypical themes; we seem hard-wired as a species to respond to, sometimes be manipulated by, these.
It's not about the literal truth of narratives so much as how meaningful the messages. I long ago rejected orthodox Christianity, and am an atheist when it comes to the Abrahamic notion of God. That said, the message of the New Testament deeply resonates with me.
Jesus as a heroic sacrificer and rescuer/redeemer provides a template for living a spiritual life because of the emphasis upon love and forgiveness, as well as poverty in the sense of non-attachment. Thomas à Kempis'
Imitatio Christi (The Imitation of Christ) is, some say, the most read Christian tome after the Bible itself. However, is the theme entirely novel? One can find echoes e.g. in Buddhism, Vedanta, and Jainism, all of which antedate Christianity, and there is a school of thought that Jesus may have been taught in the far East and have had the mission of redirecting the Judaic tradition.
Whether or not spiritual adepts have consciously harnessed the power of archetypical themes in shaping human evolution is an interesting discussion: one gets the impression that groups like the Sufis think it's so. Films like
The Matrix,
Star Wars,
Star Trek,
Avatar, and so on may consciously adopt archetypical themes and appreciate their power (if only in generating box office profits), but I doubt there's much of a conscious agenda there.
Scientology seems to me to be the most conscious effort, but it's had very limited influence and the vast majority of people see it for the incoherent idiocy it is. I doubt it'll be around as something serious for very long; nonetheless, in a thousand years, we may still have access to today's films and regard them in the same way we do ancient artifacts today. There's literature like the
Epic of Gilamesh that dates back to 1800 BC which could still provide rich pickings for film makers, not to mention Greek classics like
The Iliad which have already influenced films like
Troy and been partially re-presented in modern poetic form: particularly
War Music and
Kings, by Christopher Logue. I happen to have MP3 recordings of those as read by Alan Howard on BBC radio and they're quite wonderful.
I opined earlier that modernity, with its seeming emphasis on the factually verifiable, is probably as much steeped in mythology as ever, and though that may not be all bad, a lot of it probably is, particularly when it isn't rooted in perennial archetypes that are what have really stood the test of time. We live a lot of our lives according to myths, be we theists or atheists, and really, the myths are used in both cases to justify living meaningfully. Atheists/materialists may deny the reality of consciousness and ultimate purpose, but they still seem to value temporary meaning. They aren't complete nihilists or anarchists, and morality appears important to them even though I can't fathom why.