Why Did "Solo" and "Rogue One" Feel Like RPG Sessions?

If you saw the two most recent "Star Wars Story" movies--Solo or Rogue One--a common refrain is that they feel like how Star Wars role-playing game sessions play out. The reason has a lot to do with a shift in franchise-building philosophy and what kinds of stories role-playing games are good at telling.

If you saw the two most recent "Star Wars Story" movies--Solo or Rogue One--a common refrain is that they feel like how Star Wars role-playing game sessions play out. The reason has a lot to do with a shift in franchise-building philosophy and what kinds of stories role-playing games are good at telling.

[h=3]The War That Never Ends[/h]Before selling Lucasfilm to Disney in 2012, George Lucas was working with Lawrence Kasdan on a standalone Solo film, with two others announced later (Rogue One and a third about Boba Fett). These films were first known as "anthology films" and later, "Star Wars Stories," are distinctive in that they lack an opening crawl like the trilogies. The exploration of these side stories is a tradition that Star Wars helped create:

As with most aspects of the modern blockbuster, franchise expansion got its big-screen start with “Star Wars,” which used novels, comic books and TV movies to create a so-called ‘Extended Universe,’ before gaining speed in the 2000s, thanks principally to superhero pictures, or borderline superhero pictures, like “Catwoman,” “Elektra,” and “The Scorpion King” (though “Supergirl” and “U.S. Marshals” are two unsuccessful examples of early universe-expansion before that).

But why now? Disney's success with interweaving Marvel stories -- something long-established in comics -- is certainly part of it:

Studio executives see their jobs as minimizing risk, and movies based on established, proven properties are seen as less risky than original material, and thus less likely to get them fired if they don’t work. The extended universe is seen to be a way of not just building on a franchise through sequels, but by linking seemingly stand-alone pictures and allowing them to crossover. Why take a gamble on an original script when you can squeeze in a spin-off or prequel instead? If you have a proven franchise asset, as most of these studios do, it’s seen as responsible business to maximize it by getting as much product out of it as you can. Whereas the old studio system would put their biggest stars in as many films as possible, now the properties themselves are the stars.

Two factors are coming together to make this kind of storytelling popular. Millennials are interested in storytelling and the Internet's fondness for mashups:

The of idea continuing a successful movie goes beyond just striking gold with the same idea. Studio executives see their jobs as minimizing risk, and movies based on established, proven properties are seen as less risky than original material, and thus less likely to get them fired if they don’t work. The extended universe is seen to be a way of not just building on a franchise through sequels, but by linking seemingly stand-alone pictures and allowing them to crossover. Why take a gamble on an original script when you can squeeze in a spin-off or prequel instead? If you have a proven franchise asset, as most of these studios do, it’s seen as responsible business to maximize it by getting as much product out of it as you can. Whereas the old studio system would put their biggest stars in as many films as possible, now the properties themselves are the stars.

It's probably no coincidence that Dungeons & Dragons is experiencing a rise in popularity too. And that's at least in part due to the fact that role-playing games do storytelling and mashups very well.
[h=3]RPG's Strength Stat[/h]Traditional RPGs in the vein of D&D can still tell exciting stories, but they don't lend themselves to the epic, sweeping narratives that are narrowly focused on one character's destiny--a staple of Star Wars.

There are reasons for this: randomization; an attempt to balance play for all players so they have fun; leveling and improvement systems so that all characters have an incentive for self-improvement; and multiple independently-minded player characters who may not follow the plot as dictated by the game master. Steven Ray Orr explains:

As a writer, I knew that storytelling was an isolated affair that involved ruthlessly stealing ideas from friends, family, and anyone else that happened upon my path, but Dungeons & Dragons is the antithesis of such selfishness and best understood as method of crafting a communal narrative. Just as the limitations of genre, form, and style bind written stories, so too are there rules in D&D that confine what is possible, but role-playing removes the absolute authorial control that comes with solitary storytelling.

D&D itself is a mashup of a wide variety of influences:

The different classes of character you can play as—barbarian, druid, wizard, etc.—are pulled from mythological and literary sources, from pre-Christian Celtic traditions to the character of Aragorn in the LOTR universe. Geographical planes where one can play, magical spells and weapons one can use, and monsters one might fight stem from sources as disparate as Pliny’s Natural History, Paradise Lost, and Arabian Nights. This kitschy mix of every fantastic invention or story we know of makes the texture of D&D campaigns collage-like and chaotic. Since so many ideas are being reused at once, one inevitably creates a new Frankenstein’s monster of a campaign every time.

D&D and RPGs in general have always told great stories, and the geeky nature of fandom encourages detail-oriented worldbuilding. The Star Wars Story films are an attempt to fill in those gaps. In a way, the sensibilities of the expanded universe ofthe Star Wars franchise has come full circle, reaching the big screen that spawned it. It's a new form of storytelling that has been prevalent on TV, and not everyone is happy about it.
[h=3]A New Form of Storytelling[/h]The expansion of Hollywood universes into a web of movies that contribute to a larger narrative has shifted the focus of a film's success away from its stars and good storytelling to worldbuilding, which can only be fully appreciated by consuming all of the media:

When movies were mostly one-offs—and not spinoffs, sequels, reboots, or remakes—they had to be good...No matter how well executed, commercial success for such a film was never guaranteed. Laying out an enormous sum of money on a product whose creation depends upon a harmony of massive egos, and whose final appeal is the result of intangibles, is a terrible basis for a commercial enterprise...Today, the major franchises are commercially invulnerable because they offer up proprietary universes that their legions of fans are desperate to reënter on almost any terms. These reliable sources of profit are now Hollywood’s financial bedrock.

The latest Avengers: Infinity War movie leaned heavily on the audience's knowledge of the other movies and was therefore its success was nearly inseparable from the entire Marvel oeuvre. Joshua Rothman of the New Yorker explains how this transition affects Star Wars:

It used to be a “saga”—a story told in the epic mode, in which the fate of the world is inextricably tied to the souls of cosmically important and irreplaceable individuals. It’s becoming a “universe,” in which atomized and interchangeable people embark on adventures that are individually exciting but ultimately inconsequential.

Add all this together and it's no wonder that movies are now starting to tell the same stories that RPGs have always been telling:

When the universalization of “Star Wars” is complete, it will no longer be a story but an aesthetic. We’ll be able to debate which actor played Han Solo best, just as we weigh the pros and cons of different James Bonds. We’ll keep up with the new movies not because we want to find out what happens—the plot, if one exists, will be an impenetrable trellis of intersecting arclets—but because we like their vibe, their look, and their general moral attitude.

If the box office receipts of Star Wars and the Marvel movies are any indication, fans are finally coming around to the kinds of stories we've telling with our RPGs for decades.

Mike "Talien" Tresca is a freelance game columnist, author, communicator, and a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to http://amazon.com. You can follow him at Patreon.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

S

Sunseeker

Guest
It certainly does now.

Okay, not all of it, but many of us were ignoring Shmi's immaculate conception just as hard as we were ignoring midichlorians. So it's best said, that in the original trilogy, the whole "the Force will guide you" could easily be seen as mystic mumbo-jumbo.

Now however Star Wars is a deterministic universe were [-]God[/-] The Force decides how things go.

No. It's not "now". It's not "new". This is literally the way it's always been. This is the way Lucas wrote it. And by the your own admission the only reason you're upset now is because you've been plugging your ears and covering your eyes while going LALALALALALALA. AKA: trying to ignore it.

But again, by your own admission: the "it" that you're ignoring has been in the movies since the beginning.

And I think you're giving Snoke too much credit for "explaining it away" as the Force in action. Qui-Gon made the same explanation in The Phantom Menace. Obi-Wan makes the same explanation in A New Hope.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

evileeyore

Mrrrph
The mere fact that two droids, directionless, were randomly brought to the son of the movie's villain living in squalor, before leading him into the desert to be stumbled upon by the one person who could take them to save the princess - that's the power of [-]the Plot[/-] The Force at work. We overlook this because the setting is fine with it. It's certainly an improvement over Jim Kirk getting randomly stranded on a frozen planet within a few hundred feet of the one time traveler that can resolve the story.
I'm sorry... in what way is it better? Both are 'lazy writing' or cinematic shortcuts. One simply accepts it and moves on, the other tries to paint it 'this is great', but it's no better.

The difference is that there's something about these particular characters that makes certain fans reject them out of hand, and not give them the same chance to entertain that they gave the original movies.
This bit of the discussion has (almost) nothing to do with Rey's Mary Suedom. That's a separate issue.




No. It's not "now". It's not "new". This is literally the way it's always been.
For me it hasn't been. It's one of the things I enjoyed about Star Wars, humble folk could rise up and of their own volition take on the evil Empire and win.

Somewhere along the way* it stopped being that and became "God did it". That has reduced Star Wars.


* Around and about Shmi and midichlorians, though as mentioned, for me it was hammered home by Snoke.

AKA: trying to ignore it.
Not at all. Before Phantom Menace† it was easy to treat it as Han did, mumbo-jumbo. A mysticism cover for psychic powers, whether they were inherent talent or teachable, the 'Let the Force guide you' sounded like pure mystical nonsense.

† Even after Phantom Menace. I and many other fans were just hoping the midichlorians and immaculate conception were the product of Lucas being out in the sun too long. But yeah, now with Rey's leap to unearned power and Snoke's explanation, there is no hope.

And I think you're giving Snoke too much credit for "explaining it away" as the Force in action. Qui-Gon made the same explanation in The Phantom Menace. Obi-Wan makes the same explanation in A New Hope.
No they didn't.

But I'll tell you what, find the quotes and I'll eat my words.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tony Vargas

Legend
It's because in the last twenty years the term has shifted away from "Author Insert Overly Competent Character" into "Overly Competent Character".
So, just the usual linguistic entropy: specific idea lacks a label, so one is created for it, gets over-applied & mis-used until it loses all meaning, and a new one must be coined.

Yeah, I hate that. Seems like 20yrs is a short cycle time, too.
 

Eltab

Lord of the Hidden Layer
I and many other fans were just hoping the midichlorians and immaculate conception were the product of Lucas being out in the sun too long.
Midichlorians sounded to me like an unnecessary and ham-handed attempt to 'science-ize' The Force. Nothing was added but something vital was subtracted from the universe-defining conceit.

As I suggested somewhere upthread, I thought Shmi was providing a lame excuse because she did not want to dredge up horrible memories of what really happened.
 

So, just the usual linguistic entropy: specific idea lacks a label, so one is created for it, gets over-applied & mis-used until it loses all meaning, and a new one must be coined.

Yeah, I hate that. Seems like 20yrs is a short cycle time, too.

Everything's faster in the age of the internet. It used to take weeks or months for people to lose interest in a news story, for example.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top