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

evileeyore

Mrrrph
It depends on how you review J.J. Abrams' portfolio. Star Trek 11 and 12, Super 8.....but then again we have Cloverfield Lane, too. I think I'd rather watch the prequels over the prior three Abrams films, but Cloverfield Lane is one of the best shaky cam monster movies ever so....shrug?
I can see the comparison.

Note however, I hate everything* JJAbrams has made except the Cloverfield movies (which he only produced, no writing, no directing).


10 Cloverfield Lane wasn't shaky cam. You're thinking of Cloverfield. (The Cloverfield Paradox also wasn't shaky cam, just shaky premise)

* Everything I've seen that he has written or directed, which was the first season of Lost, some of Fringe, Star Trek ID, TFA, and hmmmm. Yeah, that's about it for what he's written/directed that I've watched. I didn't hate Armageddon, but I didn't really enjoy it either.




What is the difference between a "Mary Sue" and a protagonist who goes about difficult tasks and by dint of competence, grit, aptitude, and other positive qualities manages to succeed?
Competent heroes have setbacks, suffer failure, and often grow in some capacity. Mary Sues start at the top of their game, never suffer significant setbacks of failures, and have no character arc.

With a competent hero the story and character are written well enough that one will feel they have a chance of failure, you may come to worry if the character is in a dangerous situation.

With [-]James Bond[/-] Mary Sue, you just wonder in what awesome manner will they overcome the next speedbump.

Anyone here seen or read The Martian?
Yes, and the above answers why Watney isn't a Mary Sue. You're probably pretty sure he's going to survive to the end of the book, but only because it's extremely rare for an author to kill off a POV character.

Is he a Mary Sue, just because he is competent?
I'll repeat myself for clarity sake: It isn't hyper-competence that creates in one's mind the idea that a character is a 'Mary Sue', it's the lack of setbacks, failures, and meaningful growth.

And some Mary Sue's are even enjoyable, I point to Bond, Jason Bourne, The Ocean's movies, etc.

Looking back to many of the early classics of science fiction - Doc Savage. E.E. "Doc" Smith's Lensmen series. Batman. Let us add in Sherlock Holmes. These are all characters who are all exceedingly good at what they do. More recently, there's Locke Lamora who is highly competent. On TV, there's the entire team of Leverage who are exceedingly competent.
Yes, largely some Mary Sueism going on (with Batman it depends on the writer, with the Lensmen he even explicitly wrote a chapter about his father starring as the character's father - is this not a prime definition of Mary Sue? The author insert character?).

We might also want to talk about Harry Potter in this group.
I think my large dislike with Potter is that I've grown to hate the Chosen One trope.

...they are smarter than Spock, can beat Worf in a fight...
Data definitely Sued up a few times. :p

Now, there is some question as to whether in their original form, thinking of a Mary Sue as somehow bad may be a tad sexist...
So... one should simply applaud badly written characters? No, it's sexist to loudly cry out "misogynist' everytime a female character is criticized, even if it is sometimes accurate.

...in an era where women were under-represented in genre literature, to insert a woman who has the positive traits of the men (competent and attractive, basically) is... wrong? Really?
As long as the character is well written, please do so.

See for instance (my personal abbreviated list): Leia, Ripley, Dorothy, Brienne of Tarth, Kate Beckett, Clarice Starling, Gwen DeMarco, The Bride, Dana Scully, Hermione Granger, Sarah Conner (yes even in the first movie), and saving the best for last, Addie Loggins.




I've long been familiar with the term (and thought it also implied self-insertion), and noticed when it crossed from fanfic into RPG usage, but not when it became applied to characters in mainstream movies. I mean, the parallel between fanfic (self-insertion) character and RPG character is obvious enough, and wildly OP characters are a thing in both.

I do not see how it could meaningfully apply to a character in an official entry of a franchise, though.
It's because in the last twenty years the term has shifted away from "Author Insert Overly Competent Character" into "Overly Competent Character".

I've never seen it RPGs... but I suppose the DMNPC and "DM's Character That Is A God/Uber Powerful Quest Giver Named Elminster In His Campaigns" could be it's gaming variant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

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".

I've never seen it RPGs... but I suppose the DMNPC and "DM's Character That Is A God/Uber Powerful Quest Giver Named Elminster In His Campaigns" could be it's gaming variant.
To me, the expansion to RPGs made perfect sense, gamers are inserting themselves into genre, in a sense, as a matter of course.

But the term always struck me as saying something about the author (player), not just the character, that wouldn't apply to a pro - or would be career (If not litteral) suicide if it did apply, so it seems like an extreme negative in that context.
 

Competent heroes have setbacks, suffer failure, and often grow in some capacity. Mary Sues start at the top of their game, never suffer significant setbacks of failures, and have no character arc.

With a competent hero the story and character are written well enough that one will feel they have a chance of failure, you may come to worry if the character is in a dangerous situation.


I really feel that, by your definition, Rey falls well into the "competent" territory and falls short of the Mary Sue label by a good margin. Just because she succeeded at using a couple of force powers during a crisis doesn't means she's never failed at anything and always been in control of the situation.
 

evileeyore

Mrrrph
I really feel that, by your definition, Rey falls well into the "competent" territory and falls short of the Mary Sue label by a good margin. Just because she succeeded at using a couple of force powers during a crisis doesn't means she's never failed at anything and always been in control of the situation.
Aside from not knowing how to use a blaster pistol and not turning Ben to the light side, name one failure or setback in the movies.

Just one.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Aside from not knowing how to use a blaster pistol and not turning Ben to the light side, name one failure or setback in the movies.

Just one.
Well, she does get her butt well kicked by Kylo Ren a couple of times in TFA - the first is when she gets captured and the second is when she gets lucky in the final battle; she's losing until the ground splits and puts her on one side of a chasm and he on the other.

And shortly before she gets captured she fails to persuade Finn - one of the few actual friends she has - to stick around.

She sails through TLJ pretty free and easy, though.
 

Eltab

Lord of the Hidden Layer
I enjoyed the prequels, loved the original three, … Plus I loved TFA and TLJ and don't care what anyone on the internet thinks, and Solo was a blast.
The prequels had some neat ideas to explore (Palpatine's rise to power, Sidius manipulating everybody behind the scenes) and an Olympic-pole-vault high hurdle to get over (origin of Darth Vader). My opinion on them was colored by an in-theater experience that Lucas had nothing to do with: for one movie I arrived late and had to sit in the very front row. I had sensory overload when I left the theater, and only saw action in about the middle third of the screen. I still get a headache when I try to watch that movie.

I read the book for Force Awakens (because I read the book for the original before I saw it, too) and noted how it was copying almost directly the Ep4 plot. I've been bummed ever since, because I wanted to see the story continue not be repeated with the next generation. I haven't see any of the Disney-era films yet, but Rogue 1 and Solo sound interesting enough that I want to try.
 

Well, she does get her butt well kicked by Kylo Ren a couple of times in TFA - the first is when she gets captured and the second is when she gets lucky in the final battle; she's losing until the ground splits and puts her on one side of a chasm and he on the other.

And shortly before she gets captured she fails to persuade Finn - one of the few actual friends she has - to stick around.

She sails through TLJ pretty free and easy, though.

Her goals in TLJ were to (a) convince Luke to teach her to be a Jedi - failed; (b) convince Kylo Ren to turn to the light - failed. She "sailed" through the movie because, except for the fight sequence which was really more part of Kylo' character arc, she wasn't ever in physical danger. In any other movie, the fact that she emerged alive from an exciting fight scene would just be par for the course.
 

evileeyore

Mrrrph
Well, she does get her butt well kicked by Kylo Ren a couple of times in TFA - the first is when she gets captured and the second is when she gets lucky in the final battle; she's losing until the ground splits and puts her on one side of a chasm and he on the other.
The first one I'll grant. But you must grant that this setback is immediately mitigated by her reversal of it. She rescues herself. She 'copies' Force Persuade from Kylo. She resists a trained dark jedi's Force Persuade. She got a lot going her way in this sequence despite being captured.

Second one; this ground splitting that 'saved' her from certain failure... was this before or after she calms and centers herself (as a trained jedi would) and then cuts Kylo's leg and face and sets him into "oh crap, I'm going to die" mode?

That was rhetorical, it was after she began to win, the first time she'd ever fought with a lightsaber.

And shortly before she gets captured she fails to persuade Finn - one of the few actual friends she has - to stick around.
Hmmm. Okay. I can add that to list short list fails. So, by my count we're up to 3 and a half.




Her goals in TLJ were to (a) convince Luke to teach her to be a Jedi - failed...
Really? Failed? You consider "Okay, I'll give you three free lessons, after that you have to steal these books and do a lot of reading" to be a 'failure' state in terms of the movie?

See, I consider that to be a solid success. Not only that, she convinces him to get hi butt back in the game.

In any other movie, the fact that she emerged alive from an exciting fight scene would just be par for the course.
'In any other movie' (and any other character) she'd have likely lost a body part, or been seriously injured. At least any other Star Wars movie...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mallus

Legend
Not only that, she convinces him to get his butt back in the game.
So Rey playing supporting character to bitter old hermit Luke, which leads him to his final, triumphant showdown with Kylo on Crait is evidence *she's* a Mary Sue?

How does that work?

I mean, other than demonstrating the rather limited utility of the term (in its more recent, broader definition).
 

Really? Failed? You consider "Okay, I'll give you three free lessons, after that you have to steal these books and do a lot of reading" to be a 'failure' state in terms of the movie?

See, I consider that to be a solid success. Not only that, she convinces him to get hi butt back in the game.

She suffered a setback, and she had to use ingenuity to overcome it. Mary Sues don't suffer setbacks - everything goes as planned. Even in the rest of Star Wars, the heroes tend to win in the end - Empire being the famous exception. To use an earlier example, Luke didn't fail to rescue Princess Leia. He was the one who established the goal and pursued it, and accomplished it in the end. There was just a lot more setbacks along the way, which provided room for other characters to contribute to the story.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top