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



## Jacob Lewis (Jun 11, 2018)

Incidentally, the Star Wars Roleplaying Game (FFG) is a narrative-based game. It eschews a lot of the traditional crunch and power-game ideology found inherent in more tactical and combat heavy systems, and embraces the theater of the mind style of play. The irony here lies between the movies emulating one aspect of an RPG and an RPG designed to emulate aspects of the movies.

Also, I should mention Star Wars Rebels. That show actually felt like an entire RPG campaign. Best Star Wars! I will have season 4 on Blue-ray to complete my collection. Loved it!


----------



## Koloth (Jun 11, 2018)

In a way, Solo and SW:Ep1-3 are very related to the too common 1-20 Adventure Paths common today in RPGs.  In Solo, before the movie opens, we know that Solo has to somehow meet Chewie and Lando and acquire the Falcon in a card game not to mention the Kessel run in 12 parsecs.  The path is pretty well mapped out, only details are left to the imagination and we know that failure of the main character isn't really an option.  When Star Wars opened(before there were episodes), we knew little except what we might have seen in the few TV adverts.  The whole movie was a new adventure with little pre-knowledge of who might live or die or what level of success our band of adventurers might achieve.  Much like early D&D when there were no adventure paths, only DM made adventures possibly supplemented by the occasional store bought module.  Only the DM might know where the path was going to lead.  The adventurers had a lot of control over where the script went.


----------



## AriochQ (Jun 11, 2018)

When designing adventures, I think of the encounters as scenes.  The spaces between the encounters are less structured and usually generated on the fly.  When reviewing the adventure, I think to myself "If this was a movie, would I find it interesting?".  If the answer is yes, it will likely be well received.

RPG adventures have much more in common with movies, than with written stories.  Specifically, the pacing is much different.  A novel can take its time and devote many pages to developing setting and characters.  A movie needs to do that is much more limited time.  RPG players are much more similar to movie-goers given most sessions last 4-8 hours.


----------



## pming (Jun 11, 2018)

LOL!



> 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.




So...hows that working out for ya, exex's? 

I dare...no, _I __double-dog dare_ anyone to go on Youtube and search for "Solo Star Wars review" and watch a half-dozen fan reviews. Go on. Actually, I better warn ya...they are not safe for work, nor are they going to be pretty.

Here's something from Vanity Fair: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/06/solo-star-wars-box-office-flop

It seems that, really, only those completely clueless about Star Wars, or "critics" (who get free tickets and pre-showings) are saying anything remotely positive. The VAST majority of Star Wars fan plop it firmly into the "bantha-poo-doo" bucket. Same goes for The Last Jedi, and Rogue One.

This, uh, "News Review"?...gives me a bit too much of the "Disney told me I had to say this" vibe. Truth is, there is not enough "Star Wars History Building" and too much "Going to try something really different". People are fans of Star Wars because it has a shared history, "canon", basically. When a writer/director comes in and says "Naaa...we're going to just ignore all that history stuff and make the film WE want, not what the fans want"...well, I wonder why they are surprised at how poorly it's doing.

With the way things are going nowadays with actors and movies being speakers and platforms for their particular "view and outlook on what is the 'right' way to behave and think", well, I don't see the future getting any better for our beloved franchises. 

TL;DR The writer is incorrect. Solo sucks. The Last Jedi sucks. The Force Awakens sucked a bit less than those. Disney (and Kathleen Kennedy and Ram Bergman, along with Rian Johnson are pretty much single-handedly destroying Star Wars as a franchise; the Fans are NOT happy...and based on tweets and interviews with how those three folks feel about the "True Star Wars Fans", I don't see a rosy future. 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 11, 2018)

pming said:


> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Implied "in my opinion" added.


----------



## estar (Jun 11, 2018)

What going on with franchise related films like Marvel and Tabletop RPGs are unrelated. Stuff like Marvel has their roots in things like Babylon 5 where people started to realized they can use film and television to tell multi-layered stories that are interesting and fun to watch. With it's series format, television show pioneered this but Marvel was able to come up with a format that works for film. For that they deserve every bit of praise. 

In contrast RPGs are overkill for collaborative storytelling. Due to the players being able to pick any course of action their character can do and the flexibility of the human referee they lack any ability to control a narrative. Instead what RPGs are great at is creating experiences. Transporting the players to another place or time and experience interesting adventures and situations. Doing this within the time one has for a hobby. The story, if there is any, is a person recounting what happened.

The only way that RPG have been able to define anything close to a narrative is by limiting the players choices by focusing on a narrow situation, or a narrow selection of possible characters. Some do it as part of the presentation, while other seemly more expansive designs do it as part of the setup of a campaign.


----------



## mykesfree (Jun 11, 2018)

It is almost as if people who are currrently part of the Star Wars story team used to work for West End Games.....

https://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=4808


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 11, 2018)

pming said:


> TL;DR The writer is incorrect. Solo sucks. The Last Jedi sucks. The Force Awakens sucked a bit less than those. Disney (and Kathleen Kennedy and Ram Bergman, along with Rian Johnson are pretty much single-handedly destroying Star Wars as a franchise; the Fans are NOT happy...and based on tweets and interviews with how those three folks feel about the "True Star Wars Fans", I don't see a rosy future.
> 
> ^_^
> 
> Paul L. Ming




Jesus, I almost miss being able to downvote this kind of garbage.

<-This fan is happy.  Speak for yourself, and only yourself.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2018)

estar said:


> In contrast RPGs are overkill for collaborative storytelling. Due to the players being able to pick any course of action their character can do and the flexibility of the human referee they lack any ability to control a narrative. Instead what RPGs are great at is creating experiences. Transporting the players to another place or time and experience interesting adventures and situations. Doing this within the time one has for a hobby. The story, if there is any, is a person recounting what happened.



This is not true of all RPGs.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 11, 2018)

talien said:


> But why now?  Disney's success with interweaving Marvel stories -- something long-established in comics -- is certainly part of it:
> -Quotation 1-
> Two factors are coming together to make this kind of storytelling popular.  Millennials are interested in storytelling and the Internet's fondness for mashups:
> -Quotation 2-



Were these quotations intended to be so similar?

Disney seems to be doing better 'filling in the blanks' of the _Star Wars_ universe than in writing all-new stuff.  Hopefully they can learn from experience faster than Lucas did with the prequels.

A thought-provoking piece.  I'm going to have to digest this for a while.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 11, 2018)

Jacob Lewis said:


> Incidentally, the Star Wars Roleplaying Game (FFG) is a narrative-based game.




I wouldn't go that far. It has strong narrative elements, but it is pretty crunchy compared to what I would call a narrative game. It is pretty complex combat wise, at least as much so as say D&D.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 11, 2018)

talien said:


> If you saw the two most recent _"Star Wars Story" _movies--_Solo _or _Rogue One_




Ah you're one of those people that pretends *The Last Jedi* never happened.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 11, 2018)

pming said:


> So...hows that working out for ya, exex's?
> 
> I dare...no, _I __double-dog dare_ anyone to go on Youtube and search for "Solo Star Wars review" and watch a half-dozen fan reviews. Go on. Actually, I better warn ya...they are not safe for work, nor are they going to be pretty.
> 
> Here's something from Vanity Fair: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/06/solo-star-wars-box-office-flop




Solo getting harsh critic reviews but is getting much better audience reviews than the Last Jedi did (which got steller critic reviews). I think the main reason it hasn't done well at the box office is people feeling burned by The Last Jedi. Plus no Harrison Ford.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Jun 11, 2018)

Bagpuss said:


> I wouldn't go that far. It has strong narrative elements, but it is pretty crunchy compared to what I would call a narrative game. It is pretty complex combat wise, at least as much so as say D&D.



I don't think we're playing the same game.


----------



## Koloth (Jun 11, 2018)

Bagpuss said:


> Ah you're one of those people that pretends *The Last Jedi* never happened.




A "Star Wars Story" isn't the same as "Star Wars: Episode xxx"  Solo was a 'Story', Last Jedi was an 'Episode'.  Solo also doesn't have the normal Episodic opening text crawling into space.

Disclaimer - haven't seen Last Jedi yet.  Not a SW fanatic.  First viewing of many of the last movies have been either cable or disk.  Have seen Solo, decent movie but somewhat predictable as noted in my previous comment.

Still wondering if  Qi'ra's "From a Dragon" comment was an Emilia Clarke adlib or a scripted line.


----------



## ehren37 (Jun 11, 2018)

pming said:


> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Alt-right guys whine about "forced diversity/feminism" in New Star Wars... in other news, water is wet. 

A few screeching neckbeards does not constitute a significant majority. Yep, you guys sure spammed Rotten Tomatoes with vice-signaling user reviews. Still won't kill the franchise if Jar Jar/Prequel Anakin couldn't.


----------



## Hutchimus Prime (Jun 11, 2018)

mykesfree said:


> It is almost as if people who currrently part of the Star Wars story team used to work for West End Games.....
> 
> https://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=4808




Man I loved that game and system.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 11, 2018)

Bagpuss said:


> Ah you're one of those people that pretends *The Last Jedi* never happened.




The Last Jedi isn't a "_Star Wars Story"_ movie. It's part of the main saga, which is characterised by_ "Episodes"_.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Jun 11, 2018)

As a Star Wars fan since age 6 when I saw the original film in 1977, I enjoyed both The Last Jedi and Solo, and find that contemporary SW fans are becoming a really weird bunch. It really helps that I see these movies with my 6 1/2 year old son who helps serve as an important reminder that Star Wars is best enjoyed in proper context.

The Last Jedi was impressive for being a meticulous deconstruction of the franchise. Solo was equally impressive for being an affirmation of the story's core conceits. That they both worked despite being so opposite in terms of underlying structure strikes me as an impressive range of achievement for a franchise that started as an homage to Flash Gordon serials.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 11, 2018)

I'm a diehard Star Wars fanatic and I actually liked Solo better than Rogue One (well, to be honest, it's more like R1 2nd Half > Solo > R1 1st Half). I've also loved the new trilogy so far, so <shrug>. 

I really ought to try to convince more people to try get into a Star Wars RPG; haven't bothered to check out the FFG version yet, how does it play?


----------



## talien (Jun 11, 2018)

Bagpuss said:


> Ah you're one of those people that pretends *The Last Jedi* never happened.




I'm specifically referencing "A Star Wars Story" which is a different kind of movie from the main trilogies.  So Last Jedi happened, but totally distinct from these new "side quests."

EDIT: Two other people pointed this out before I read all the way down, didn't mean to pile on!


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jun 11, 2018)

Doctor Futurity said:


> As a Star Wars fan since age 6 when I saw the original film in 1977, I enjoyed both The Last Jedi and Solo, and find that contemporary SW fans are becoming a really weird bunch. It really helps that I see these movies with my 6 1/2 year old son who helps serve as an important reminder that Star Wars is best enjoyed in proper context.
> 
> The Last Jedi was impressive for being a meticulous deconstruction of the franchise. Solo was equally impressive for being an affirmation of the story's core conceits. That they both worked despite being so opposite in terms of underlying structure strikes me as an impressive range of achievement for a franchise that started as an homage to Flash Gordon serials.




Hear, hear.

I was already a fan of Star Wars when I saw Jedi in the theater at age 5. I thought The Last Jedi was amazing and Solo was really good (if, as a prequel of sorts, completely unnecessary).

Complaints about TLJ (the ones that aren't overtly racist/sexist, anyway) sound to me a lot like complaints about calculus back in high school; it's weird and does things differently from that we're used to. But like calculus, it's a far more advanced take on the structure upon which it is built, and allows far more in the way of options and directions it can go.


----------



## Schmoe (Jun 11, 2018)

First, thanks for the post.  I find it a very interesting observation about the current state of Hollywood.  I wonder if this in some way maps back to the "serial" days of early Hollywood, where the success isn't about one single film but is more about the overall body of work.

Also, I'm not sure I understand all of the criticisms of the recent films.  I loved Rogue One, really liked Last Jedi, and thought Solo was pretty good entertainment.  Does that make me a bad person?


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 11, 2018)

ehren37 said:


> Alt-right guys whine about "forced diversity/feminism" in New Star Wars... in other news, water is wet.
> 
> A few screeching neckbeards does not constitute a significant majority. Yep, you guys sure spammed Rotten Tomatoes with vice-signaling user reviews. Still won't kill the franchise if Jar Jar/Prequel Anakin couldn't.




Paul isn't what you're implying (or saying) he is. He's just grumpy. He's not part of any "you guys" nor did he appear to be talking about the issue you're talking about. I think he just didn't like Solo.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 11, 2018)

Rogue One was one of my favorites, and the Last Jedi was ok, though it would have been better if the end of the psychic connection was a romance and not killing a room full of people. #Murica

The whole Incel Jedi toxic fans thing definitely degrades the whole series, it's the fandom menace, nobody wants that out of their movie experience. Though I didn't go see Solo yet because it didn't look interesting, the actor of the young solo didn't strike me as solo-ish. 

I've always looked at Star Wars as an aesthetic, or "dirty" space opera, in contrast to Trek's clean. One main reason that these franchises keep getting made over original fare, is that the studio owns the IP, sfx and all, that was one of the big deals with Lucas leaving Hollywood and going up to Marin to found Industrial Light and Magic, his sfx company. Add fan investment, and there is a fairly large savings for movies such as sci-fi that special effects are an enormous cost.

RPG's share similar themes story wise to some of these movies, same as something like Force 10 to Navarone, it's peripheral though. If played out exactly, often it would be either a railroad or one player grandstanding.


----------



## pming (Jun 11, 2018)

Hiya.

Solo still fails miserably at the box office compared to other SW movies. It's got a lot of "issues", but some folks have no trouble ignoring or not even noticing them. That's fine. Good, actually; it lets them enjoy a SW movie where someone who is "a fan" and actually does notice these "issues"...not so much. I'm glad some folks enjoyed it. Good for them! I don't care to see it based on everything I've seen and read about the plot, story, acting, etc. Not really my idea of what SW is.

Money is money, and Solo is, from everything I've read, expected to lose money. This doesn't bode well for other "one-off" movies. They should stop now.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Morrus (Jun 11, 2018)

pming said:


> Solo still fails miserably at the box office compared to other SW movies. It's got a lot of "issues", but some folks have no trouble ignoring or not even noticing them. That's fine. Good, actually; it lets them enjoy a SW movie where someone who is "a fan" and actually does notice these "issues"...not so much.




Stop gatekeeping, please. You don’t get to decide who’s a real fan and who isn’t.


----------



## Staccat0 (Jun 11, 2018)

I actually thought The Last Jedi felt a lot like a RPG session where everyone is rolling poorly. I don’t mean that as an insult either. Just an interesting structure designed around repeated failures still leading to resolution. There is a lot to learn about GMing from it IMO.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jun 11, 2018)

Staccat0 said:


> I actually thought The Last Jedi felt a lot like a RPG session where everyone is rolling poorly.



That's interesting. If I ever watch this movie again, I'll try to view it through this lens. 

Thanks!


----------



## ehren37 (Jun 11, 2018)

Staccat0 said:


> I actually thought The Last Jedi felt a lot like a RPG session where everyone is rolling poorly. I don’t mean that as an insult either. Just an interesting structure designed around repeated failures still leading to resolution. There is a lot to learn about GMing from it IMO.




It definitely reminded me of going around in FATE or Savage Worlds triggering your flaws and making poor decisions to build a fat stack of bennies/chips for the final showdown!

It's one thing I get incredibly frustrated with seeing in TLJ criticisms - that the Finn/Rose/hacker subplot allegedly "went nowhere" and "was pointless". No... they screwed up, brought in the wrong guy, and got a lot of people killed! Like... does failure somehow not count as a resolution or plot advancement?


----------



## dragoner (Jun 11, 2018)

pming said:


> Hiya.




Yeah. Kennedy still has made them 3.1 billion in profit, as in "above cost". So don't expect them to change anytime soon. Solo has already been written off due to bad marketing, though when it's all said and done, I doubt it will lose mosey, just not do what it was expected to.

As far as the toxic incel types who attacked the actress that played Rose, they can expect sanction from the studio, and to be purged. Those are bad for business, as well as just bad people, and they drive away the normal fans that are their bread and butter.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 11, 2018)

dragoner said:


> Yeah. Kennedy still has made them 3.1 billion in profit, as in "above cost". So don't expect them to change anytime soon. Solo has already been written off due to bad marketing, though when it's all said and done, I doubt it will lose mosey, just not do what it was expected to.
> 
> As far as the toxic incel types who attacked the actress that played Rose, they can expect sanction from the studio, and to be purged. Those are bad for business, as well as just bad people, and they drive away the normal fans that are their bread and butter.




How does this "sanction and purge" thing work, exactly?  I mean, is this gonna be a hard target search of every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse, or more of a "we don't want you icky people in our fandom" or simmering else?  

Who exactly are these toxic incel types and how do I keep them out of my neighborhood?  Do they make a spray?


----------



## dragoner (Jun 11, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> ... or more of a "we don't want you icky people in our fandom" or simmering else?





They are a media company after all, no telling how they might go after who they think are bad, though portraying them in a bad light is usually a good guess. They could also throw out some freebies in the groups and watch the fanbase be like sharks with blood in the water, ready to turn in the bad ones.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 11, 2018)

dragoner said:


> They are a media company after all, no telling how they might go after who they think are bad, though portraying them in a bad light is usually a good guess. They could also throw out some freebies in the groups and watch the fanbase be like sharks with blood in the water, ready to turn in the bad ones.




Ah, yes, pour encourager les autres.  Good, good.  Have we considered concentration camps?


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 11, 2018)

talien said:


> I'm specifically referencing "A Star Wars Story" which is a different kind of movie from the main trilogies.  So Last Jedi happened, but totally distinct from these new "side quests."
> 
> EDIT: Two other people pointed this out before I read all the way down, didn't mean to pile on!




You don't deny it though.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Jun 12, 2018)

Gradine said:


> I really ought to try to convince more people to try get into a Star Wars RPG; haven't bothered to check out the FFG version yet, how does it play?



It's a very different style of RPG than what most people are used to, and there are few good examples out there to illustrate it. The mechanics are very easy to pick up, very intuitive in play. But it takes practice to get proficient with it, and time to break old habits. If you go into it like just another D&D-type game where you expect to fight a lot, gain treasure, and power up, you may be disappointed. I highly recommend one of the Beginner Sets and take some time with that. And listen to the Order 66 podcast. Or message me if you have questions, otherwise this thread will get off track even more than it already has.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 12, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Ah, yes, pour encourager les autres.  Good, good.  Have we considered concentration camps?




Who is we?

#murica #freedumbs


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 12, 2018)

dragoner said:


> Who is we?
> 
> #murica #freedumbs




Oh, I thought it was you, me, and Disney, you know, the people hoping that those toxic incels get what's coming to them and stay out of our neighborhoods.  Are you out?  Out isn't where you want to be, citizen.  If you're not against toxic incels, you're with them!  No, clearly you're not out, that's silly, I was joking.  You belong on the right side of the toxic incel fence, the side history favors!

Question, though, what do we do with the non-toxic incels, or are they a myth?

Second question, does our club have a name, or are we just fans of Disney?

Third question, do we get spiffy uniforms?


----------



## dragoner (Jun 12, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Oh, I thought it was ... me ...




Fantasizing about death camps? Only you. Not surprised though, ironic, yes.

http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/star-wars-has-a-white-male-fandom-problem


----------



## Gradine (Jun 12, 2018)

Yet another thread I wasn't expecting to go full Godwin. This one didn't even take that long!



Ovinomancer said:


> Question, though, what do we do with the non-toxic incels, or are they a myth?




While I can't answer any of your other questions, all obviously asked in jest, it's worth pointing out that the actual answer to this one is yes, they are a myth. The phrase "Toxic Incel" is basically redundant


----------



## dragoner (Jun 12, 2018)

Gradine said:


> The phrase "Toxic Incel" is basically redundant




Only because I forgot a comma; "toxic, incel types" is not.


----------



## evileeyore (Jun 12, 2018)

pming said:


> It seems that, really, only those completely clueless about Star Wars, or "critics" (who get free tickets and pre-showings) are saying anything remotely positive. The VAST majority of Star Wars fan plop it firmly into the "bantha-poo-doo" bucket. Same goes for The Last Jedi, and Rogue One.



I'm a pretty hefty, old-time fan... and I like Rogue One.

Not so much for TLJ and TFW.




dragoner said:


> As far as the toxic incel types who attacked the actress that played Rose, they can expect sanction from the studio, and to be purged.



Ah yes, sanction and purge the labeled group.

You know who that reminds me of?



Gradine said:


> Yet another thread I wasn't expecting to go full Godwin.



Dang it.  Now I can't mention them.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 12, 2018)

dragoner said:


> Only because I forgot a comma; "toxic, incel types" is not.




There really isn't anyone who identifies as an incel who isn't toxic.  People who aren't getting laid aren't, by definition, incels.  Incels are a specific group of people whose very culture is based on the idea that somehow they are _owed_ sex (by women of course) and that women (the collective hive-mind) have shuned them into "involuntary celibacy".  That's _literally_ what the term "in-" for involuntary and "cel-" for celibate, MEANS.  There are no non-toxic incels, just like there are no non-toxic alt-righters, neo-nazis(thread's already been godwined so, whatever) or TERFs.  

There are plenty of dorky neckbeards who have trouble finding romance and sexual relations.  These people are not by default incels.  Incels core ideology is that women _owe them sex_ by no other grace than their being born a man.  It is a horrifyingly sexist and toxic ideology.  So NO, there are no non-toxic incels.

---Sorry if you know this, I just want to make it abundantly clear to everyone reading this thread.  If this is too far off into politics, that's fine, I shouldn't need to address this subject again now that I have rather clearly explained what an incel is, and what they're not.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 12, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> ---Sorry if you know this...




I would wager that those above defending them, know it too. My point is that to be gigged for a typo is muy ridiculoso; plus using "toxic, incel" is explaining that they are toxic, as well as putting emphasis. And yes, I noticed the redundancy shortly after posting it, I just didn't care to edit the post for it.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Jun 12, 2018)

I remember the good old days, when it was possible to have fun and productive conversations about Star Wars, and not have someone come in and inform me that I was not a true fan because I didn't see things their particular way. Of course, I have to think back to the days when dial up was the norm and you paid AOL by the hour to remember what that was like.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Jun 12, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> There really isn't anyone who identifies as an incel who isn't toxic.  People who aren't getting laid aren't, by definition, incels.  Incels are a specific group of people whose very culture is based on the idea that somehow they are _owed_ sex (by women of course) and that women (the collective hive-mind) have shuned them into "involuntary celibacy".  That's _literally_ what the term "in-" for involuntary and "cel-" for celibate, MEANS.  There are no non-toxic incels, just like there are no non-toxic alt-righters, neo-nazis(thread's already been godwined so, whatever) or TERFs.
> 
> There are plenty of dorky neckbeards who have trouble finding romance and sexual relations.  These people are not by default incels.  Incels core ideology is that women _owe them sex_ by no other grace than their being born a man.  It is a horrifyingly sexist and toxic ideology.  So NO, there are no non-toxic incels.
> 
> ---Sorry if you know this, I just want to make it abundantly clear to everyone reading this thread.  If this is too far off into politics, that's fine, I shouldn't need to address this subject again now that I have rather clearly explained what an incel is, and what they're not.




Actually I appreciate your explanation, I was thinking incel as a typo or something, had no idea that this was a thing that people identified as. And I use the word "people" loosely here.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 12, 2018)

Doctor Futurity said:


> Actually I appreciate your explanation, I was thinking incel as a typo or something, had no idea that this was a thing that people identified as. And I use the word "people" loosely here.




Although I appreciate this forum's strict rules on politics, there are times, as you just demonstrated, that the forum suffers for it, because there isn't an opportunity to explain what is being talked about, and that explanation is _necessary_ for a full understanding of the discussion, even a non-political one.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 12, 2018)

dragoner said:


> Fantasizing about death camps? Only you. Not surprised though, ironic, yes.
> 
> http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/star-wars-has-a-white-male-fandom-problem




I was just following your lead, don't give me all the credit!  I'm willing to share.  I just figured that we could really clean up on the bennies for turning in toxic, incels to Disney if we, you know, concentrated them first.  It's a win-win!   They'll be out of our neighborhoods (we'll build the camps in white male neighborhoods, I hear they're next on the list anyway) and easy for Disney to, you know, _deal with_. 

But, no, not fantaasizing about death camps, that would make us Nazis!  We're just upstanding citizens with a comically shallow view of other people that we've binned into convenient groups to dehumanize so hating them and hoping that our faceless corporate masters will deal with these problem groups is good and we can get on with liking what we like without all the icky others.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 12, 2018)

Because being kicked off a Star Wars fan forum is totally like being a victim of the Holocaust. Riiight.



Ovinomancer said:


> ... that would make us Nazis!




You did start talking about putting people in camps, if the shoe fits.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 12, 2018)

dragoner said:


> Because being kicked off a Star Wars fan forum is totally like being a victim of the Holocaust. Riiight.



Whoa, there, mate, the Holocaust is bad -- you want to be careful saying stuff like that, people might get the wrong idea.  I know toxic, incels are not good people and we don't want them around, but if you start talking about the Holocaust, people might catch on that we're binning people into groups to dehumanize them so they can be dealt with appropriately.  Disney's probably okay with giving us bennies to turn toxic, incels in, no questions asked, but if you keep going on about the Holocaust, they might not give you the top-tier bennies, even if you turn lots of toxic, incels in!  We don't want that!

But, yeah, good point about just kicking them off the Star Wars fan forums.  Start small, right?  I suppose Disney is going to have to offer good bennies so that people like us can turn in toxic, incels because otherwise Disney could never identify them, right? They post just like us, pleasant, good, folks don't put out self-identifying drivel and random attacks on good people like Ms. Tran.  So, Disney is gonna need us to root the toxic, incels out and turn them in so they can be banned right off our forums!  



> You did start talking about putting people in camps, if the shoe fits.



dragoner, I know you're really trying to be modest, but I don't need all of the credit on this -- taking your idea about putting the toxic, incels out and Disney being at our backs just got me rolling on the ideas.  I took my cues from you, chum!  No need to act like I'm the brains here, I'm a follower, not a leader, just doing my part.  If you say camps are too far, that's good, we won't do that.  Forums first, good call.  I've already started on my list of toxic, incels to root out, do you want to compare notes so we don't double up, or is it going to be like a competition?  I've gotta say, you've really impressed me on your ideas to deal with toxic, incels, and I think you've got the inside track on this, but I'll give you a good game!


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 12, 2018)

Doctor Futurity said:


> I remember the good old days, when it was possible to have fun and productive conversations about Star Wars, and not have someone come in and inform me that I was not a true fan because I didn't see things their particular way. Of course, I have to think back to the days when dial up was the norm and you paid AOL by the hour to remember what that was like.




300 baud modem for the win!!  Bonus points if it took you longer than an hour to log onto AOL.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 12, 2018)

On reflection, I'm part of the problem, here.  I dislike it immensely that topics like this seem to attach posters that feel the need to make it about this group being horrible people or that group being horrible people when the topic has nothing to do with any of that.  Here, some made some strong statements about disliking the more recent Star Wars films.  I disagree with them, but they're perfectly welcome to their opinions.  But, then a few other posters showed up to complain about people who complain, and some of those put complainers about Star Wars movies into neat, disposable people bins like incels, totally non-sequitur.  They then congratulated themselves on identifying yet a new out-group to hate on and dehumanize.  I, unfortunately, took to mocking this as it's a subject that touches closes to the verboten here, and certainly won't win me friends among those interested in following identity politics.

And, so, I denounce myself.  My mocking of shallow reasoning and the grouping of others for the purposes of dehumanizing them as the latest outgroup target of disdain and hate is done, and somewhat regretted.  It certainly won't help those I mocked see themselves differently, and it did rather cack up the thread.  I'll show myself out.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 12, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm part of the problem, here.




Part? You parse two words out of a whole post about role playing, is little more than a part, and quite transparent with trying to connect "all white males" to incels.



dragoner said:


> Rogue One was one of my favorites, and the Last Jedi was ok, though it would have been better if the end of the psychic connection was a romance and not killing a room full of people. #Murica
> 
> The whole Incel Jedi toxic fans thing definitely degrades the whole series, it's the fandom menace, nobody wants that out of their movie experience. Though I didn't go see Solo yet because it didn't look interesting, the actor of the young solo didn't strike me as solo-ish.
> 
> ...




I still think Rogue One would make for a good story from role playing, if things at the table worked out that way would be one in a million, then again that is the beauty of role playing, the game of a million stories.


----------



## Shasarak (Jun 12, 2018)

dragoner said:


> You did start talking about putting people in camps, if the shoe fits.




Hey come on, you dont have to be a Nazi to put people into camps.  George Takei and his family were put into a camp.


----------



## Schmoe (Jun 12, 2018)

Gradine said:


> Yet another thread I wasn't expecting to go full Godwin. This one didn't even take that long!
> 
> 
> 
> While I can't answer any of your other questions, all obviously asked in jest, it's worth pointing out that the actual answer to this one is yes, they are a myth. The phrase "Toxic Incel" is basically redundant




It was going fine until someone decided to start throwing around insults like "alt-right" and accusing people of bad faith.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 12, 2018)

edit: let's get back to role playing.


----------



## Shasarak (Jun 12, 2018)

dragoner said:


> Are you defending putting people into camps




Putting people into camps is an equal ideological activity.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 12, 2018)

To get back to roleplaying, the Star Wars movies are pretty formulaic.  They may have, to some degree, created the formula, but you can see it in a variety of "epic" movies.

They center around a "chosen one".  Anakin, Luke, Rey, Jin, Han.  Someone who is the "center" of whatever events happen to be taking place.  Drawn to this "chosen one" are a motley crew of characters who fill a selection of secondary roles, depending on which secondary role the "chosen one" also happens to fill.  You can see this in The Matrix as well as you can see it in Star Wars, you can even see it in Star Trek (the bridge crew+friends).  Usually there's a "rogue"(Han), a "warrior"(Worf), a "healer"(sometimes also a motherly-type)(Padme) and a "leader"(Morpheus).  In a way, these roles are very similar to the expected result of role-playing many of the base classes in D&D (and other RPGs).  But that's not unreasonable since these stories and the classes we play both drawn from the same classical stories.  

In part, it is easier to write people as "characters" half-people who are less a robust human and more an assortment of specific expressions associated with a certain type of role.  It makes for good storytelling for being able to tell when someone is acting "in character" or "normally" or when something strange is going on.  The fighter who suddenly wants to heal, the healer who suddenly wants to backstab the party.  It allows the reader to see what elements have been introduced in the story that may have triggered this change, the magic ring, the strange liquid, and so forth.

It's weird to say that the movies resemble what we're doing at the table, because I generally think it's the other way around.  Not so much that we're imitating the movies, but we're all (movies and tables) imitating the same source material.  Telling an epic story.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 12, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> To get back to roleplaying, the Star Wars movies are pretty formulaic.  They may have, to some degree, created the formula, but you can see it in a variety of "epic" movies.




I think that the formula is "The Hero's Journey" by Joseph Campbell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero's_journey Lucas said that as well that Campbell's book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" was an influence on Star Wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 12, 2018)

dragoner said:


> I think that the formula is "The Hero's Journey" by Joseph Campbell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero's_journey Lucas said that as well that Campbell's book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" was an influence on Star Wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces




Right, which is fundamentally, what we're doing when we sit down at the table.

We may be seeing this _more_ in movies now that people who grew up with D&D/TTRPGs (as oppsoed to people who were already adults when they came out) are now starting to not only make it up a sizable portion of the market, but also that we are getting to be the ones in charge of product development.  It may be nothing more than a unique alignment of the stars: the producers happen to like the same things the consumers want to buy.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 12, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> It may be nothing more than a unique alignment of the stars: the producers happen to like the same things the consumers want to buy.




I think it is cyclical, that the whole "Hero's Journey" or monomyth thing has been going on for a long time, and that we are playing off those old stories in creating our new ones in the games.


----------



## pming (Jun 12, 2018)

Hiya!



evileeyore said:


> I'm a pretty hefty, old-time fan... and I like Rogue One.
> 
> Not so much for TLJ and TFW.




Ditto. I actually quite enjoyed Rogue One. It was a different Star Wars movie, but it at least felt plausible and had a "Star Wars Feel" to it. With TFA...I got good and bad vibes from it. As a story, it wasn't bad. I loved the initial "trailer" premiss...a chick who is an orphan survives by scavenging from crashed empire and rebelion ships. Then again, I am one of those DM's who REALLY gets into the whole "what about the aftermath?" and "what about the non-heroes, like the cab driver who's cab is ruined, or the janitor who sees his workplace get utterly anihilated...how does this 'Rebellion' impact them?". So I was hopeful that Rey would be just a more or less normal orphan trying to survive and she gets caught up in something far bigger than she ever thought possible.

Alas, we in stead got a more or less _completely special uber-talented beyond reality_ orphan trying to survive on her own, who _goes from scavenging ship parts to being able to naturally use the Force and defeats an experienced dark-side jedi knight simply by picking up a lightsaber and swinging it_. O_O Yeah, TFA had so much potential! To be honest though, I thought that Finn was honestly the most interesting character. I mean, c'mon! Just a lonely canon-fodder Stormtrooper who finely can't deal with the harsh realities of his job, deserts his platoon, ditches his past, and betray's the only "family" he's ever known? Remember that whole "little people" thing I mentioned above? Yeah, Finn fits right into that. Too bad he wasn't the main focus of the series. 

At least we got to see more about the Knights of Ren... Wait... No, we didn't. But that was another one of the most interesting tid-bits everyone wanted to know more about!  We had to wait until TLJ to find out more about... huh..?  No? We didn't? What's that you say? "This is not the Interesting Story Line you are looking for..." ..."This is not the Interesting Story Line I am looking for"... "Carry on..."  ..."Ok. Carry on. Carry on..."  

TLJ & Solo, & I suspect Fett... nope. Don't like. No sir. 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 12, 2018)

dragoner said:


> I think it is cyclical, that the whole "Hero's Journey" or monomyth thing has been going on for a long time, and that we are playing off those old stories in creating our new ones in the games.




Probably.  I suspect within a decade there will be a dramatic disconnect between what we're being offered and what we want to watch.  

While I'm making predictions, I'm also going to say it'll be a repeat of the 90 or the 00's.  We're either going to be craving gritty and "real" and not getting it, or we're going to be getting "gritty and real" and we'll want something lighter.

I think, fundamentally, we're never going to see the 80's again.  70's maybe.  But I think we're going be stuck in a 20-year cycle vacillating between cynical and jaded and ignorantly hopeful for a while.

Yeah, my predictions are that depressing.  Imagine how my players feel!


----------



## evileeyore (Jun 12, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> We may be seeing this _more_ in movies now that people who grew up with D&D/TTRPGs (as oppsoed to people who were already adults when they came out) are now starting to not only make it up a sizable portion of the market, but also that we are getting to be the ones in charge of product development.  It may be nothing more than a unique alignment of the stars: the producers happen to like the same things the consumers want to buy.



Groups of 'heroes' uniting for a cause has always been a thing in both movies and stories, it's isn't anything new.


Just to name a few movies:
Seven Samurai (1954)
Ocean's 11 (1960)
Kelly's Heroes (1970)


Rogue One was literally a lift straight from the old John Wayne WWII movies...


Now I will grant it's something not seen _very often_ as it's harder to write for (and more expensive to cast around), but I suspect the sudden rise in 'hero group' movies has more to do with Marvel's sudden success and the charm of their ensemble casts.  And that _everyone_ wants to bottle a bit of that lighting for themselves.




pming said:


> To be honest though, I thought that Finn was honestly the most interesting character. I mean, c'mon! Just a lonely canon-fodder Stormtrooper who finely can't deal with the harsh realities of his job, deserts his platoon, ditches his past, and betray's the only "family" he's ever known? Remember that whole "little people" thing I mentioned above? Yeah, Finn fits right into that. Too bad he wasn't the main focus of the series.



Finn is mos def best character in the new series.

But I have a soft spot for Po and his unswerving love and loyalty to BB-8.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 12, 2018)

Jacob Lewis said:


> I don't think we're playing the same game.




The one with all the dice with the funky symbols that half the time end up cancelling out so you don't achieve anything?


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 12, 2018)

While I've nothing against TFA and TLJ (I'll happily sit down and watch either one any time), as with the previous two trilogies I'll be leaving the jury's final verdict in abeyance until after I've seen Episode 9 and am thus able to put the first two in context.

Rogue One rocks!  Solo isn't bad at all...I certainly want to see it again at some point.

And I suppose you could get any of these plots out of an RPG if the DM pulled off some subtle nudging and gentle railroading...


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 12, 2018)

dragoner said:


> Part? You parse two words out of a whole post about role playing, is little more than a part, and quite transparent with trying to connect "all white males" to incels.
> 
> 
> 
> I still think Rogue One would make for a good story from role playing, if things at the table worked out that way would be one in a million, then again that is the beauty of role playing, the game of a million stories.




Let's no be revisionist already, eh?  This was the post I responded to:



dragoner said:


> Yeah. Kennedy still has made them 3.1 billion in profit, as in "above cost". So don't expect them to change anytime soon. Solo has already been written off due to bad marketing, though when it's all said and done, I doubt it will lose mosey, just not do what it was expected to.
> 
> *As far as the toxic incel types who attacked the actress that played Rose, they can expect sanction from the studio, and to be purged.* Those are bad for business, as well as just bad people, and they drive away the normal fans that are their bread and butter.




Emphasis mine.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Jun 12, 2018)

Bagpuss said:


> The one with all the dice with the funky symbols that half the time end up cancelling out so you don't achieve anything?



We're definitely not playing the same game.


----------



## Schmoe (Jun 12, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Let's no be revisionist already, eh?  This was the post I responded to:
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine.




I think everyone has agreed to move back to the topic of the OP.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 12, 2018)

Schmoe said:


> I think everyone has agreed to move back to the topic of the OP.



Sure, no prob, was happy to leave the last word to others until the blatant misrepresentation.  Say bad things about me, fine, just don't revise history when you do.

Please, carry on.


----------



## mcosgrave (Jun 12, 2018)

I guess it’s like the character with the 40 page backstory v the characters with a few quirks: Solo had a huge history, and is central to the story: hard to do much with him without breaking things. That limits the Solo movie a lot. 

 Finn, and Rose, didn’t have big backstories, and aren’t, even now, vital to the story arc. Likewise Rogue One: linked into the story arc, but none of the core team were vital. They’re new characters, basic stats and a few traits, and they could rise or fall, or even die, without breaking the story. As it turns out, they worked out ok in the movies (YMMV here) but they’re not impossible to replace for the last film. 

To me, it felt like the main cast in the first three (SW, ESB, ROTJ) were all vital to the rebellion, but many of the characters in the current trilogy just don’t seem as big: does that, perhaps, reflect a change in how we tell stories now?


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jun 12, 2018)

mcosgrave said:


> To me, it felt like the main cast in the first three (SW, ESB, ROTJ) were all vital to the rebellion, but many of the characters in the current trilogy just don’t seem as big: does that, perhaps, reflect a change in how we tell stories now?




I feel like it more reflects a need to partially balance the new cast against the old one - make the young heroes feel more like the "newbies" by contrasting them with the older leaders.  But you could have a point - there's a lot of YA-type fiction guiding movies lately, and therefore more conflict of Hero vs. Authority.  Idea worth exploring, I'd say.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 12, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> people might catch on that we're binning people into groups to dehumanize them so they can be dealt with appropriately.




I know the thread moved on from this, but there were a couple of important points that didn't really get addressed:
1) "Incel" is not a label people created for a group of people they don't like just because they hate specific Star Wars or Marvel movies or what have you. It's a distinct community that chose the label for themselves and that has an ideology that is explicitly misogynistic, to the extent that they idolize a mass shooter who specifically targeted women. This is not a group that anybody needs to champion, not even for S&G "devil's advocate" play. 
2) The only group of people I see [MENTION=6943731]dragoner[/MENTION] as having specifically referred to as "incels" were the folks who bullied and harassed Kelly Marie Tran off of Instagram. Given that the Incel community took credit for and congratulated themselves for this feat (having already chased Daisy Ridley off of social media earlier), I don't really think that it was any sort of out-of-left-field reference.



Savage Wombat said:


> I feel like it more reflects a need to partially balance the new cast against the old one - make the young heroes feel more like the "newbies" by contrasting them with the older leaders.  But you could have a point - there's a lot of YA-type fiction guiding movies lately, and therefore more conflict of Hero vs. Authority.  Idea worth exploring, I'd say.




I think you're definitely right about the YA-fiction tropes; as someone who's read a few YA fantasy books (and whose partner devours them constantly) there's a ton of those tropes at play in the new trilogy (_especially_ all the Rey/Rylo stuff in TLJ). Then again, as someone else pointed out, a lot of those tropes have their genesis in Campbell and "Thousand Faces", so it's not like those are necessarily out of place. But just as I recognize that Young Adult Me was not the target audience for Eps I-III; I also recognize that Mid-30's Neckbeard Me is not necessarily the target audience for Eps VII-IX.


----------



## dco (Jun 12, 2018)

I find some similarities to RPGs:
- A lot of movies full of filler with disconnected stuff, like RPG companions.
- Stories that could be written in one afternoon by any DM, but a player has more options to enjoy a bad story because he interacts with it.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 12, 2018)

I haven't seen Solo.  I have a certain degree of admiration for Rogue One despite a couple of glaring but minor flaws in the script.

I think TFA and TLJ are some of the worst written scripts I've seen in a movie and that they have together thoroughly trashed the main story line in every way you could trash it, and I'd love to be able to say that without it becoming a political discussion.  

I don't think all the furor really matters, because while I think that Marvel's cinematic universe has transcended the frequently dumb illogical source material its drawn from, they've managed to draw together the best ideas of that source material and elevate it into something better than the comics themselves.  Where as, what they've done with TFA and TLJ is actually of less quality and less value than the frequently dumb amateur subpar cash cow of the extended universe.  As such, what really matters is that the next generation isn't going to have many Star Wars fans in it, just as this generation does not have many Star Trek fans in it and ultimately Star Wars is going to be scarcely more relevant in a couple decades than Swiss Family Robinson or 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is today.  What we who were fans think about it doesn't really matter compared to the fact that its not really becoming a part of the childhood of people today the way it was a part of ours.

As for the RPG aspect of it, I'm not sure.  Rogue One clearly had some nods to the old WEG extended universe in it and felt like it could have been a WEG module.  But one of the great things about the WEG game itself is it felt always like it could have been a Star Wars story.


----------



## ehren37 (Jun 12, 2018)

pming said:


> Hiya!
> Ditto. I actually quite enjoyed Rogue One. It was a different Star Wars movie, but it at least felt plausible and had a "Star Wars Feel" to it. With TFA...I got good and bad vibes from it. As a story, it wasn't bad. I loved the initial "trailer" premiss...a chick who is an orphan survives by scavenging from crashed empire and rebelion ships. Then again, I am one of those DM's who REALLY gets into the whole "what about the aftermath?" and "what about the non-heroes, like the cab driver who's cab is ruined, or the janitor who sees his workplace get utterly anihilated...how does this 'Rebellion' impact them?". So I was hopeful that Rey would be just a more or less normal orphan trying to survive and she gets caught up in something far bigger than she ever thought possible.
> 
> Alas, we in stead got a more or less _completely special uber-talented beyond reality_ orphan trying to survive on her own, who _goes from scavenging ship parts to being able to naturally use the Force and defeats an experienced dark-side jedi knight simply by picking up a lightsaber and swinging it_.





Well, Star Wars has a random farmboy go from picking up power converters at Tosche Station to flying a military starfighter in combat, blowing up the Death Star, and being able to use the force with no training other than a 5 minute conversation on the commute to Alderaan. And a random slave kid, who is such a super duper special snowflake he was CONCEIVED BY THE FORCE also using the force with no training to win the equivalent of the Indy 500, and blow up a smaller Death Star by spinning (a good trick). For good or ill, Star Wars is built on exceptionalism. TFA/TLJ worked to expand that exceptionalism beyond the Skywalker bloodline, as Jedi bloodlines don't make a ton of sense given that Jedi are discouraged from having children. 

Kylo wasn't a jedi knight though... he's someone with like 25 in his force using stats but still relatively low level. Huge raw potential and innate talent, little discipline or skill. People also tend to overlook Kylo's complete lack of focus in the fight, as killing his father didn't provide the relief he wanted from the pull of the light side. The look of regret and on his face afterwards... that isn't how you channel the dark side. Wang Chi from Big Trouble in Little China explains it well: "That's why the bottle didn't slice. My mind and my spirit are going north and south."  It's also why he was trying to draw on the pain by beating the boltcaster wound, a weapon that had been built up over the entire movie as particularly devastating. All that, coupled with wounds from Finn... and she managed to fight him to a standstill by letting the force flow through her. Let this be a lesson kids... don't violate your paladin oath!


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 12, 2018)

mcosgrave said:


> I guess it’s like the character with the 40 page backstory v the characters with a few quirks: Solo had a huge history, and is central to the story: hard to do much with him without breaking things. That limits the Solo movie a lot.




Only if you consider the point of making a Solo movie telling people basically all the stuff that was already fleshed out about Solo's backstory.  I haven't seen it, but my impression of it is that they made the mistake of making Solo the way they'd make an intro story to new superhero, and it was all pretty much exposition about facts about Solo's life that had been already established by prior films.  That is to say, if you are going to start a Captain America franchise, you need to start by introducing the audience to Captain America and explaining the character.   But you don't need to do that in a prequel.  We've pretty much already been given enough to go on.  So the only reason to do a prequel is if you want to tell a story that really hasn't been much hinted at in the core material, like for example, 'Han Solo at Star's End' or something like that.

That is, if you are making a movie for the purpose of story telling.  There are reasons for making a movie that have nothing to do with telling a good story, and Disney is quite obviously more concerned about other reasons (like for example, financial ones) than it is getting a script and saying, "Wow this is a great story.  This script just demands that we make a movie whether we want to or not, because this story needs to be told."


----------



## ART! (Jun 12, 2018)

Haven't read the whole thread, so this has probably been said, but my take is that _Solo _and _R1 _expanded the setting, and in particular expanded it using characters who don't have a magical destiny or wield Jedi-fu and psychic powers. 

_R1 _does have Chirrut Imwe, but his magic power is "just flavor", in the sense that he's a character with mad martial arts skills who can do stuff everyone else can do [whispers] *except he's _blind_*, whereas otherwise in SW the magical characters can do things "normal" people _can't_ do. Chirrut expresses the magic of the setting without giving him any game-changing powers. I guess he arguably has very mild psychic powers, too, but again that's really just "he has a great Perception roll *even though he's _blind_*", so not really a power, mechanically.

I thought Solo in particular seemed chock full of setting-expanding bits, including simple throw-aways like  the Imperial recruitment holovids (playing the Imperial March!) at the station on Corellia.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 12, 2018)

Celebrim said:


> I haven't seen Solo.  I have a certain degree of admiration for Rogue One despite a couple of glaring but minor flaws in the script.
> 
> I think TFA and TLJ are some of the worst written scripts I've seen in a movie and that they have together thoroughly trashed the main story line in every way you could trash it, and I'd love to be able to say that without it becoming a political discussion.
> 
> ...




I can't agree with this.  My daughter and son are both currently ardent Star Wars fans and their Star Wars is TFA, TLJ, Rogue 1, and Solo (although they haven't seen this one yet).  Your issues with the new movies are not universally held, apparently, as all but Solo have rocked the box office and done very well in post-theatre DVD/digital sales.  I think your predictions of Star Wars losing fans in the new generation to be very myopic.  Heck, Disney's about to open Star Wars Land in the Hollywood Studios themepark and that alone is going to create fans (it looks stellar, btw).  Disney is also opening a themed resort that is self-contained and runs ongoing stories throughout the resort.  You check in, pick a faction, and for the duration of your stay you're involved in ongoing Star Wars stories taking place throughout the resort.  

Star Wars is most certainly not on it's way out.

If you want to stick to discussion of specific faults in the movies, I'm game (though probably not in this thread), but the doom and gloom of Star Wars is dead is a bit much.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 12, 2018)

Rogue One felt like an RPG session, specifically like a 1st level D&D game, because you were quickly introduced to a number of sketchy characters without much reason to work together who all promptly died...
_...because they didn't have a cleric._
;P


----------



## evileeyore (Jun 12, 2018)

Bagpuss said:


> The one with all the dice with the funky symbols that half the time end up cancelling out so you don't achieve anything?



Nitpick:  Slightly less than half the time.  Slightly less.





ehren37 said:


> Well, Star Wars has a random farmboy go from picking up power converters at Tosche Station to flying a military starfighter in combat, blowing up the Death Star, and being able to use the force with no training other than a 5 minute conversation on the commute to Alderaan.



Nitpick:  "random farmboy *with piloting skills** go from..." "...and trusting in the Force to guide his shot with minimal training†..."


* This is lampshaded in his "I used to bull's-eye womp rats in my T-16 back home" thus explaining that piloting and firing vehicular weaponry (while flying rather than just in a gunnery position) wasn't completely foreign to Luke.

†  We have no idea how long that flight lasted, no idea how much training he got.  But... all he really did was trust in his new found Force senses for the timing and shot line-up.  Everything else was as "easy as bull's-eyeing womprats".



> And a random slave kid...



_Phantom Menace_ was a steaming pile of garbage and you've just pointed out one of it's glaring flaws.  Good job you.



> Kylo wasn't a jedi knight though...



I'm pretty much on side with you on Kylo... but Rey is a Mary Sue.  Just get over it, embrace, and stop fighting it.  It'll be easier on you in the long run.





Tony Vargas said:


> Rogue One felt like an RPG session, specifically like a 1st level D&D game, because you were quickly introduced to a number of sketchy characters without much reason to work together who all promptly died...
> _*...because they didn't have a cleric.*_
> ;P



_ZING!_


----------



## pming (Jun 13, 2018)

Hiya!



ehren37 said:


> Well, Star Wars has a random farmboy go from picking up power converters at Tosche Station to flying a military starfighter in combat, blowing up the Death Star, and being able to use the force with no training other than a 5 minute conversation on the commute to Alderaan. And a random slave kid, who is such a super duper special snowflake he was CONCEIVED BY THE FORCE also using the force with no training to win the equivalent of the Indy 500, and blow up a smaller Death Star by spinning (a good trick). For good or ill, Star Wars is built on exceptionalism. TFA/TLJ worked to expand that exceptionalism beyond the Skywalker bloodline, as Jedi bloodlines don't make a ton of sense given that Jedi are discouraged from having children.




I guess you are technically correct. But honestly, I just can not see "Boy Wonder" turning in to "Whining Teenager". There are just too many things that make no sense when you look at A New Hope in comparison to Revenge of the Sith. It's like they are two completely separate characters. And don't even get me started on the whole "midichlorians"! 



> Kylo wasn't a jedi knight though... he's someone with like 25 in his force using stats but still relatively low level. Huge raw potential and innate talent, little discipline or skill. People also tend to overlook Kylo's complete lack of focus in the fight, as killing his father didn't provide the relief he wanted from the pull of the light side. The look of regret and on his face afterwards... that isn't how you channel the dark side. Wang Chi from Big Trouble in Little China explains it well: "That's why the bottle didn't slice. My mind and my spirit are going north and south."  It's also why he was trying to draw on the pain by beating the boltcaster wound, a weapon that had been built up over the entire movie as particularly devastating. All that, coupled with wounds from Finn... and she managed to fight him to a standstill by letting the force flow through her. Let this be a lesson kids... don't violate your paladin oath!




Hmmm...I think I'd still put him in the rank of Knight. I can see your view though. (and for the record, WEG d6 Star Wars for the win!  ).

Rey's ability to pretty much get whatever she wants without any real sacrifice or effort just rubs me the wrong way. That's why so many folks put her in the Mary Sue box, me included.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## cbwjm (Jun 13, 2018)

I'm a huge star wars fan, I went and watched Solo with my brother and we both loved. So many little things in the movie relating back to earlier films or cartoons, mostly name drops, it was great.

Not sure why exactly it felt like an RPG session, I hadn't even considered it until reading this (and I'm still not convinced), but i guess it could be because it was made up of a small group with a defined goal to complete like in so many RPG sessions.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 13, 2018)

ART! said:


> Chirrut expresses the magic of the setting without giving him any game-changing powers.



If I ever GM a Star Wars campaign, there will be a handful of important NPCs who have an "Untrained Force-User" feat.  They get a minor boon like Han Solo's luck (halfling Lucky) or Chirrut's sense (Blindsense / Tremorsense) or Qui-Jon affecting the die roll (Telekinesis) or Jar-Jar getting out of a bind just barely in time (Plot Armor).  Enough that a player should eventually ask "Is the Force with that guy?" but not an automatic "Get Out Of A Pinch Free" card.

I continue to be influenced (excessively?) by the original snippet: Han "There ain't no all-powerful force guiding MY destiny!"  Ben Kenobi -hides laugh behind sleeve-


----------



## Eltab (Jun 13, 2018)

ehren37 said:


> And a random slave kid, who is such a super duper special snowflake he was CONCEIVED BY THE FORCE also using the force with no training to win the equivalent of the Indy 500, and blow up a smaller Death Star by spinning (a good trick).



'Random' in quotes, I think.

Hindsight is 20/20:  
If I were advising Lucas, I would have made Young Anakin suspicious that everybody else - except his mom - is out to take advantage of him; he gradually warms up to Qui-Jon but not Obi-Wan.  That way the poor sod who plays Teen Anakin doesn't have to make such a huge character-twisting jump.  Anakin latches onto Padme (who gets older too between the movies) as a replacement for the mother who has been banished from his life; both mistake their feelings for romance and inevitable crack-up ensues.

I would also have somehow worked up a scene where Sidious is outside Shmi's window when she gets pregnant, sensing the Force, chortling quietly, but it's not clear what he's doing.  Rather than "There is no father" there was a night of fear and humiliation (suitable dark side emotions), rooted in her status as a slave, that she does NOT want Anakin to learn details of - and she gets fiercely protective of Anakin's future when Obi-Wan, trying to figure out why he is in over his head training Anakin, presses her on the matter.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 13, 2018)

pming said:


> I dare...no, _I __double-dog dare_ anyone to go on Youtube and search for "Solo Star Wars review" and watch a half-dozen fan reviews. Go on. Actually, I better warn ya...they are not safe for work, nor are they going to be pretty.



#

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Solo+Star+Wars+review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6rumbMe4dQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUXFbepIUjc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHwn1vUx3Ek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1phOaI7_4Hw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwj_SZHqiSc - Worse so far found it boring.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-sdHqyHKzY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrnnJzs4Wro - Most critical review oh and it's by a woman.

How far down do I have to look to find these NSWF reviews? To be fair these are all known film reviewers, but most of them a geek/nerd type fans or even people that hated the film?


----------



## jasper (Jun 13, 2018)

Doctor Futurity said:


> I remember the good old days, when it was possible to have fun and productive conversations about Star Wars, and not have someone come in and inform me that I was not a true fan because I didn't see things their particular way. Of course, I have to think back to the days when dial up was the norm and you paid AOL by the hour to remember what that was like.



What is Baud one of those minor background characters like bola fett who gets a plastics figure made?
AOL is one those speeder thingies or a droid in the background.
You mean like in the 70s where I was told I was not a true fan since saw Empire first then Star wars. Those old days?


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Jun 13, 2018)

jasper said:


> What is Baud one of those minor background characters like bola fett who gets a plastics figure made?
> AOL is one those speeder thingies or a droid in the background.
> You mean like in the 70s where I was told I was not a true fan since saw Empire first then Star wars. Those old days?




Yes! Those days exactly.


----------



## ehren37 (Jun 13, 2018)

evileeyore said:


> Nitpick:  Slightly less than half the time.  Slightly less.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Rey also had a throwaway line of dialogue about helping Unkar Plutt on the Falcon. If Luke's line about shooting some 10' rats (!) from his crappy glider qualifies him to fly a military starfighter then hers should also suffice. They're both Mary Sues (Anakin most of all). I just feel that Rey just gets called out primarily because she's a woman.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 13, 2018)

Also, Rogue One felt like an RPG adventure, to me, because I've gamed with people who would build characters exactly like the ones in the movie.  
I mean, you've got the ruthless spy played by the guy who's always willing to betray the party to prove how edgy he is.  You've got the player who always gives their character the detailed, heart-wrenching, improbable backstory neatly plugged into the background you gave for the campaign.   You've got the guy who wants to play the jedi even though you've said, from session 0, there will be no jedi, so he plays Chirrut Îmwe.  And, of course, you've got the guy who always plays the fighter in heavy armor with a greatsword, even when it's not D&D, playing his merc friend in heavy armor with a big weapon.


----------



## pming (Jun 13, 2018)

Hiya!

 [MENTION=3987]Bagpuss[/MENTION], well I'd post direct links but I guess that's "illegal" here on the site (posting a link to someone who swears, has/shows more adult subjects, or has a strong opinion to one 'side' or the other...or something like that...I'm still uncertain why, but as they say "Them's the rules" so I'm stickin' to 'em!  ).

Suffice it to say, I give very little credibility to anyone who is a "pro" movie critic nowadays (nowadays being for the last 20 or so years).

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## evileeyore (Jun 13, 2018)

ehren37 said:


> Rey also had a throwaway line of dialogue about helping Unkar Plutt on the Falcon.



How about her line of:

Finn:  You ever fly this thing?
Rey:  No, this ship hasn't flown in years.

Granted she did, just 30 seconds earlier, claim to be a pilot... however...  again.  On one hand we have Luke, who barely fends off the TIEs and needs saving from Vader in his climactic scene and Rey, who is an ace pilot and gunner on a ship _she's never even flown before_.



> They're both Mary Sues (Anakin most of all). I just feel that Rey just gets called out primarily because she's a woman.



Luke often has failures and 'barely scraped bys' and _requires rescuing_ in two movies, Rey never fails, rescues herself, and succeeds at all but one thing she puts her hand to (turning Kylo from the dark side, _so far_).

Oh, and she's pretty much untouched in all her lightsaber fights.  Take that one-handed mens!  



I'm not discussing Anakin.  There are glaring flaws in those three movies as well, and Anakin is one of the biggest of them.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jun 13, 2018)

evileeyore said:


> Granted she did, just 30 seconds earlier, claim to be a pilot... however...  again.  On one hand we have Luke, who barely fends off the TIEs and needs saving from Vader in his climactic scene and Rey, who is an ace pilot and gunner on a ship _she's never even flown before_.




So?  Luke's DM started the campaign at 1st level, and Rey's DM let them start at 3rd.  Plus, Luke was a 1st edition character, probably "keeping what he rolled".  Rey got to use point-buy and has access to skill points, not to mention that human-optional feat.  Finn and Poe are clearly 3rd level as well, so it's all fair.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 13, 2018)

I was cleaning out my desk and came across one of the greatest PC games: Star Wars Episode One Pod Racer! For both Windows 95 *and*.... wait for it... *Windows 98!*

I'm definitely not a hoarder, is what I'm saying.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 13, 2018)

evileeyore said:


> How about her line of:
> 
> Finn:  You ever fly this thing?
> Rey:  No, this ship hasn't flown in years.
> ...



Gah, are you flogging the "Rey's the worsterest mary sue of all the Star Wars mary sues, no matter how many times you point out the same flaws in the ones I like!" again?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 14, 2018)

Reassuring to know that RPGs are still mostly played by my fellow nerds.


----------



## evileeyore (Jun 14, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Gah, are you flogging the "Rey's the worsterest mary sue of all the Star Wars mary sues, no matter how many times you point out the same flaws in the ones I like!" again?



Allow me to point to something you perhaps (no doubt in your Anakin lust fueled haze) have missed:



evileeyore said:


> I'm not discussing Anakin.  There are *glaring flaws* in those three movies as well, and *Anakin is one of the biggest of them*.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 14, 2018)

pming said:


> Rey's ability to pretty much get whatever she wants without any real sacrifice or effort just rubs me the wrong way.




Okay.  So, if your family abandons you to live in a hovel in the desert, with no means of support, we call that "getting what we want with no sacrifice".  

Language changes so quickly these days, it is hard for me to keep up sometimes.

Yeah, usually I suggest folks avoid the snark, but this was kind exceptional.  If she got whatever she wanted without effort or sacrifice, she'd not be living in squalor for the majority of her life, you know.  She'd not have her mentors die or reject her.  She would, by and large, be *happy*.

Let us please remember that the Chosen One trope is a few *THOUSAND* years old.  Pretty much every mythology has at least one.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 14, 2018)

evileeyore said:


> Allow me to point to something you perhaps (no doubt in your Anakin lust fueled haze) have missed:




I was talking about Luke. :winkgun:


----------



## evileeyore (Jun 14, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> I was talking about Luke. :winkgun:



Clearly I don't consider Luke to be a Mary Sue*, and my counter-point is that Rey isn't the _worst_ Mary Sue in SW...


* Get's his hand chopped off, has to be rescued repeatedly, takes three movies to become a master lightsaberer, doesn't get the hot girl, has to eat swamp gruel...


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 14, 2018)

evileeyore said:


> Clearly I don't consider Luke to be a Mary Sue*, and my counter-point is that Rey isn't the _worst_ Mary Sue in SW...
> 
> 
> * Get's his hand chopped off, has to be rescued repeatedly, takes three movies to become a master lightsaberer, doesn't get the hot girl, has to eat swamp gruel...




I thank you for making my point so clearly. :win:


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Jun 14, 2018)

evileeyore said:


> How about her line of:
> 
> Finn:  You ever fly this thing?
> Rey:  No, this ship hasn't flown in years.
> ...




It's......it's almost like Lucas and his team were better at making a movie than J.J. Abrams and his crew. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## evileeyore (Jun 14, 2018)

Doctor Futurity said:


> It's......it's almost like Lucas and his team were better at making a movie than J.J. Abrams and his crew. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.



I dunno mate... Lucas still has the Prequels and the rereleases to be raked over all the coals for...

I think the first three movies just had enough people telling Lucas "NO!  Bad George, you can do it that way!"... and no SW movie since has had that.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 14, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Reassuring to know that RPGs are still mostly played by my fellow nerds.



It's also oddly reassuring to know nerds talking about nerdy things is still a combat-focused game! Long live the arguehobos.

That said, some opinions:

_Solo_ definitely felt like an RPG to me. Specifically an officially licensed Star Wars where the group decided, for better or worse, to throw in a whole bunch of references to the original trilogy without much regard for telling a new story. But it ended up being pretty fun!

_Rogue One_ didn't really feel like an RPG. Too much cross-cutting, and the plan worked too well. Except for the TPK...

I miss the days when we simply called "Mary Sues" heroes.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 14, 2018)

ehren37 said:


> I just feel that Rey just gets called out primarily because she's a woman.



I feel that Rey gets called out because the movies with her in them have more "feels like Star Wars" problems than the movies with the other Special characters in them.
She's being used as an easy-to-identify proxy.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Jun 14, 2018)

evileeyore said:


> I dunno mate... Lucas still has the Prequels and the rereleases to be raked over all the coals for...
> 
> I think the first three movies just had enough people telling Lucas "NO!  Bad George, you can do it that way!"... and no SW movie since has had that.




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?



(All jokes aside I'm just not much of a hater so I suck on the internet. I enjoyed the prequels, loved the original three, and even though the new Star Trek films cause personal pain on a deep level I still concede they are at least fun to watch. Plus I loved TFA and TLJ and don't care what anyone on the internet thinks, and Solo was a blast. So I am a very easy date when it comes to movies).


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Jun 14, 2018)

Eltab said:


> I feel that Rey gets called out because the movies with her in them have more "feels like Star Wars" problems than the movies with the other Special characters in them.
> She's being used as an easy-to-identify proxy.




TBH if I didn't peruse forums I wouldn't have known that the "Rey is a Mary Sue" deal was even a thing. Its something I only encounter online, and never in passing conversation. Only "person to person" gripe I've ever heard was that TFA was a bit too derivative of the original movie, which is pretty much obvious.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 14, 2018)

Mallus said:


> I miss the days when we simply called "Mary Sues" heroes.




I think there's a good point here.  

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?

Anyone here seen or read The Martian?  Mark Watney (playd by Matt Damon in the movie) is incredibly competent and strong of will and heart.  He survives and achieves in scenarios that would kill lesser men.  Making it through his ordeal is, quite simply, stretching credulity.  Is he a Mary Sue, just because he is competent?

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.  We might also want to talk about Harry Potter in this group. 

Somewhere, there's a differentiation between a Mary Sue, and good old fashioned Competence Porn.

So, the original Mary Sue comes from a piece of Star Trek fanfic, written *as a satire of fanfic*.  Their original usual qualities are that they are female, young, beautiful, have unprecedented competence in many areas, and (as a fanfic character) gain the love of one or more of the original protagonists.  The male equivalent, instead of being handsome, is often a jerk to those around him, sometimes to the point of being abusive, but the women flock to him anyway. In its more egregious form, the Mary Sue specifically and explicitly is better at specialties that are the signature of other characters in the original work - they are smarter than Spock, can beat Worf in a fight, and are better telepaths than Troi, and so on.  

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 - 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? 

So, consider that as you approach the topic.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 15, 2018)

Umbran said:


> So, the original Mary Sue comes from a piece of Star Trek fanfic, written *as a satire of fanfic*.  ... In its more egregious form, the Mary Sue specifically and explicitly is better at specialties that are the signature of other characters in the original work - they are smarter than Spock, can beat Worf in a fight, and are better telepaths than Troi, and so on.



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.


----------



## evileeyore (Jun 15, 2018)

Doctor Futurity said:


> 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.






Umbran said:


> 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.   



> 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.






Tony Vargas said:


> 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.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 15, 2018)

evileeyore said:


> 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.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jun 15, 2018)

evileeyore said:


> 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 (Jun 15, 2018)

Savage Wombat said:


> 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 (Jun 15, 2018)

evileeyore said:


> 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 (Jun 15, 2018)

Doctor Futurity said:


> 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.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jun 15, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> 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 (Jun 15, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> 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.






Savage Wombat said:


> 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...


----------



## Mallus (Jun 15, 2018)

evileeyore said:


> 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).


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jun 15, 2018)

evileeyore said:


> 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.


----------



## Shasarak (Jun 15, 2018)

I dont know why everyone is banging on about Rey when it was Kylo Ren who was the weakest part of the movie.

Of course Rey looks like a Mary Sue when she is up against that doofus.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 16, 2018)

Most people have no idea what a "Mary Sue" actually is.  It's just another attack word, they might as well be calling Rey a "communist".  

Mary Sues typically conform to the following, and I highly recommend people read the TV Tropes article on the subject.
*Unique or strange birth/upbringing/parental circumstances.*
-We all know this character at our tables right?  The one with the family who was murdered horribly right before their eyes but somehow this young child managed to escape and now is terribly moody and vengeful 24/7.
-All of the main characters fall into this category in some way or another.  Anakin was a "virgin birth".  Luke's father is Vader and his family was murdered horribly.  Rey's parents abandoned her and were "nobody" (which is unique in a Star Wars sense, though I find Kylo's answer suspect).  

*Center of prophecy.*
-This one is kinda a tossup for Star Wars.  Star Wars relies on the "Chosen One" element as a storytelling device.  So it's not surprising that Anakin, Luke or Rey would fall into it.  It sort of has its ups and downs and depends on how much it plays into other areas of the story.  

*An a-typical appearance for a member of their group.  Strange clothing.  Weird hair styles/colors.  Funny eye-colors/configurations.*
-None of the "main characters" (Luke, Rey, Anakin) really fall into this category.  
--Names also fall into this category and remember that Lucas originally wanted to call Anakin "Bendak Starkiller".  

*Access to powers nobody else has.  Access to greater levels of power nobody else has.  Access and control over these powers at a younger age than their peers.*
-Luke, Anakin and Rey can all fall into this category to some degree.  But this is also part of the Star Wars story.  Rey, Anakin and Luke were all exemplars of "the Force" at work.  Comparably, other Jedi may have been superior in other areas by virtue of their extensive training, age, communion with the Force, or other reasons; but fundamentally Anakin, Luke and Rey all have an "easier time" at these things for the same reason.  You can no more hold Rey's immense ability with the Force against her than you can against Anakin.  

*An appearance that does not match their actual age.*
-(Wolverine says hi!)  None of the main characters really fall into this category.

*Incredible success at everything they do and a lack of definite setbacks.*
-Again, all the main characters can fall into this category.  Though Anakin is probably the worst offender.
-While a Mary Sue may have to rethink their strategy, fundamentally, they always achieve what they want to do.  This is problematic in Star Wars from an epic fantasy storytelling POV.  Rey is one of the "good guys", and in Star Wars, the good guys face insurmountable odds...but they always win.  (Though Revenge of the Sith could be seen as the good guys losing, both in the sense of the Jedi being defeated and Anakin getting up-close-and-personal with lava).
--This category has lots of subcategories.  The target of the Mary Sue's affections always seems to fall for them, even against all reason (Padme says hi!).  People seemingly do whatever the Mary Sue says, again for no apparent reason, and often against better logic.  Consider the Jedi Council's objection to training Anakin, but then them folding over when Obi-Wan said he's gonna train Anakin anyway.  From a story perspective, this can be seen as the Mary Sue getting their way, even though Anakin wasn't real sure on the whole "becoming a Jedi" thing.  Among other sub categories.
--The basic commonality here is that these things happen to the benefit of the main character for *no good reason* and often for bad reasons, or for reasons that are never explained at all!


-----------------------------------------------------------

Fundamentally, I don't really see the objection to Rey above and beyond Luke or Anakin.

Maybe she just needs to lose a hand?

*insert Captain Hook joke*


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jun 16, 2018)

In addition, most of the problems above can be explained in universe as "the Force didit."  I always wanted to find out that Anakin _made_ Padme fall for him, as part of his inevitable turn.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 16, 2018)

Savage Wombat said:


> In addition, most of the problems above can be explained in universe as "the Force didit."  I always wanted to find out that Anakin _made_ Padme fall for him, as part of his inevitable turn.




My wife makes the argument that Anakin is constantly using "Force Persuade" against Padme on a subconscious level.  He _wants her_ so badly that his unconscious mind is literally bending the Force to his will.  In a single instance this may have little effect, but my wife explains it something like Force Stockholm Syndrome over time.

It would actually explain a _great deal_ of why Anakin's life is the way it is.  Why even as a slave he has a relatively good owner and home-life.  Why Qui-Gon is so obsessed with Anakin being the "Chosen One".  Why when Obi-Wan initially objects to all of that he becomes strangely defensive over training Anakin to "honor his masters wishes".  Why even when Anakin is telling Padme how he murdered a whole tribe of sand people, she doesn't tell anyone else.  Why people seem willing to protect him at every turn, even when he's obviously out of line.  

These are very common elements of a "Mary Sue" story.  Sure, we can explain them with "Anakin has super-subtle mind-control powers" but fundamentally these are common flaws seen in all Mary Sue centered stories.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 16, 2018)

Anakin is a Mary Sue (albeit not an obnoxious one at first) on a path to self-destruct, as he discovers his Mary Sue-ness.


Sunseeker said:


> *Incredible success at everything they do and a lack of definite setbacks.*
> -Again, all the main characters can fall into this category.  Though Anakin is probably the worst offender.
> 
> Consider the Jedi Council's objection to training Anakin, but then them folding over when Obi-Wan said he's gonna train Anakin anyway.



a) Teen Anakin is clearly an offender (not so sure about the cute little kid who doesn't know he has super-powers / is The Chosen One).  In between Ep1 and Ep2, Anakin gets used to powerhousing through the Force and accomplishing all objectives easily; so much so that he will casually jump out of a flying speeder and land in anther one about 20 stories beneath his own, moving perpendicularly to his original direction.  Obi-Wan (who cannot follow to provide backup) rebukes him later "You are going to be the death of me" because even with a lifetime of skill and practice he can't keep up.
By Ep3 when Anakin's goal is "Kill Obi-Wan" and he fails to beat him in combat with style (initial sword face-off) and then fails to beat him with flair (grabs a second lightsaber from somewhere and charges him two-handed) and finally fails to beat him with overwhelming power (he gets his remaining arm and both legs cut off instead, as a matter of fact), Anakin is in a berserk rage and cannot think tactically or strategically.  
Anakin has no (almost no) experience with failing or falling short or being disappointed, and does not know how to handle it.

b) And also the Council's inexplicable inaction as Obi-Wan & Anakin's Master/Paduan relationship breaks down; Anakin does not respect Obi-Wan and says to others that he is being held back because Obi-Wan is afraid of his (Anakin's) potential power.  When the Council does act - to separate the two by sending Anakin as their 'special ambassador AND SPY to Palpatine - they put Anakin in an unendurable position of 'dual allegiances' and provide him with self-contradictory instructions.  
What Anakin _needed_ most was to compete with Yoda in a test of Force might ('tell this mountain to be thrown into the sea' or something similar) and face Mace Windu in a lightsaber clash to demonstrate power and control in physical combat.  In short, to be taught some humility (and to demonstrate to the Council what a powerful time-bomb had dropped into their lap).


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 16, 2018)

Eltab said:


> Anakin is a Mary Sue (albeit not an obnoxious one at first) on a path to self-destruct, as he discovers his Mary Sue-ness.
> 
> a) Teen Anakin is clearly an offender (not so sure about the cute little kid who doesn't know he has super-powers / is The Chosen One).  In between Ep1 and Ep2, Anakin gets used to powerhousing through the Force and accomplishing all objectives easily; so much so that he will casually jump out of a flying speeder and land in anther one about 20 stories beneath his own, moving perpendicularly to his original direction.  Obi-Wan (who cannot follow to provide backup) rebukes him later "You are going to be the death of me" because even with a lifetime of skill and practice he can't keep up.
> By Ep3 when Anakin's goal is "Kill Obi-Wan" and he fails to beat him in combat with style (initial sword face-off) and then fails to beat him with flair (grabs a second lightsaber from somewhere and charges him two-handed) and finally fails to beat him with overwhelming power (he gets his remaining arm and both legs cut off instead, as a matter of fact), Anakin is in a berserk rage and cannot think tactically or strategically.
> ...




Yep, a good paddlin would have gone a long way with Anakin.


----------



## evileeyore (Jun 16, 2018)

Savage Wombat said:


> "the Force didit."



That is definitely on the list of things I dislike about TLJ.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jun 16, 2018)

evileeyore said:


> That is definitely on the list of things I dislike about TLJ.




But that applies to the entire franchise.  The Force pulls everyone where they need to be.

What author am I remembering that pointed out you could replace the word "Force" with "Plot" and explain everything?


----------



## evileeyore (Jun 16, 2018)

Savage Wombat said:


> But that applies to the entire franchise.  The Force pulls everyone where they need to be.



It certainly does now.

But keep in mind, before Snokes outright declares it (and it explains Rey's immediate mastery of the Force, so arguing against this is futile), all of it could pretty much be handwaved as 'mystic mumbo-jumbo'.

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.


Or more accurately, The Force enforces equality of outcome...


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jun 16, 2018)

evileeyore said:


> It certainly does now.
> 
> But keep in mind, before Snokes outright declares it (and it explains Rey's immediate mastery of the Force, so arguing against this is futile), all of it could pretty much be handwaved as 'mystic mumbo-jumbo'.
> 
> ...




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.


In other words - yes, there are some points of bad or lazy writing, but the same plot conveniences have been in the setting since conception.  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.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 17, 2018)

evileeyore said:


> 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.


----------



## evileeyore (Jun 17, 2018)

Savage Wombat said:


> 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.






Sunseeker said:


> 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.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 17, 2018)

evileeyore said:


> 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 (Jun 18, 2018)

evileeyore said:


> 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.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jun 18, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> 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.


----------

