I gotta ask, and I hope it doesn’t come off as jerkish, but how do you know the name “Starlord,” and not know that he’s got a spaceship? It’s like asking “Does that Captain America guy have a way to protect himself from gun shots?”
I know he has a spaceship. But what can it do? How does it work?
Because, considering the (when you think about it) silliness of tech in the MCU, it could be powered by anything. Magic. Thiotimoline. Who knows.
What are a convention ship’s capabilities in the MCU? Do some ship slog along at “warp 4” or “hyperdrive” with energy weapons, while others use magic?
The tech is all over the place. It’s like asking “who would win between the starship enterprise and Thor’s goat boat?” is like asking “which would win in a battle between a sock and a toaster?”
As far as I know, there’s no consistent (or even well-defined) answers to questions like that. As J. Michael Straczynski once said about a ship in Babylon 5: they move at “the speed of plot,” and any other capabilities are likely similarly ill-defined, and when they do get defined, it’s in the service of the story.
Actual wielders of magic in the MCU, such as Doctor Strange, typically open portals, rather than relying on spaceships (even magic spaceships).
Funny enough, Starlord’s ship also opens portals. That’s their equivalent of warp drive.
It’s been awhile, but didn’t the original Starlord have a ship that was biologically alive and sentient?
Partially. In the original comics, Star-Lord’s ship was called “Ship” and was originally a sentient star that was killed, but survived as a spirit. She can take on corporeal form and is a shapeshifter that can appear as a humanoid female or (more often) as a spaceship. She has an empathic and telepathic bond with Peter Quill, and is definitely sentient, but as the ghost of a star she is neither biological nor alive.
They scrapped all of that for the films, of course, and in the MCU Peter flies a (relatively) standard spaceship called “The Milano”, named after his boyhood crush Alyssa Milano.
Oh dear! Suddenly goat powered starboats don’t seem so outrageous!
(hey! wait! Are there more sentient stars? Were half of them killed in The Snap?)
…favorite cookie.
He’s not really in the MCU, but even Galactus has a spaceship. It’s as big as the solar system. He could certainly zip himself around the universe with his powers, but uses the ship to conserve energy.
I feel someone has to push back against the view that Love and Thunder is a good movie.
It’s a travesty. For me it really is the worst MCU movie. It’s just jokes that don’t land, unrealistic and expositional dialogue, and a lot of Korg doing both via narration. I had a pained expression the whole way through.
There are plenty of channels online trashing the film, but if you want a grown up breakdown and analysis of why it fails, I recommend A Closer Look.
Disclaimer: I loved Ragnarok, it’s probably in my top 3 MCU movies. It’s almost unfathomable to me how much the quality dropped between these sequels.
I feel someone must push back against this pushback. It was a fine film!
You know what else was nice? It wasn’t two hours and forty-one minutes! And it didn’t involve the mulit-verse, madness or otherwise. 
But you know what was bad? It had a spaceship that was a wooden boat pulled by two goats!
But you know what was good? They were screaming goats!
Got me there! They’re magnificent!
AUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHH!
I’ve never been sure why I need an analysis to tell whether or not I enjoyed a film. I thought it was fun, and it was an enjoyable way to spend a couple hours.
Sure, it doesn’t cure cancer or end world hunger, but there’s a limit to what I expect from entertainment.
That wasn’t the aim.
I noted that a few people in this thread were saying that they were going to watch this film based on recommendations in this thread. So, I just wanted to say “I didn’t like it, and here are some reasons that you might not either”.
I wasn’t suggesting that anyone would change their minds based on hearing an analysis.
(In my case, I can sometimes feel more strongly that a film was a turkey or a triumph, based on hearing all the nuances pointed out that maybe I missed on viewing. But an analysis can never flip me from feeling good or bad about a film.)
ETA: Let me also say, sorry if any of this comes across as mean-spirited. If you enjoyed L&T, then great. I don’t claim there is some objective truth of it being bad or good. Just trying to add another view
As the OP, I have no problem with that.
But, what do you think of goat-powered spaceboats?
Tone exists.
I was rewatching Walk Hard: The Dewy Cox Story. That’s a movie that had a young child being accidentally killed by his brother. But we laughed about it because it was played off as a joke. When you make a movie cartoonish, you don’t take any of the events in it seriously even the ones that would be tragic in a serious movie.
So the death of Jane Foster can’t be taken seriously in a movie that has Thor talking to his hammer, Zeus planning orgies, and screaming goats. It’s a cartoon movie. It may be a well-made cartoon movie but it’s not serious.
We can just them for meat!..ting people. Meeting people, they’re a great conversation starter.
Flew. It was replaced in Infinity War with The Benatar, and then again in the Disney+ Holiday Special with The Bowie.
I totally missed that in the movies. That actually fits right in with the character.
Different ships or just renamed? I have to pay more attention to this stuff!