Rogue One * Spoilers * Thread — Page 97

I think this is quite interesting.

http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1605650/how-star-wars-rogue-one-could-have-played-out-very-differently-according-to-ben-mendelsohn

Ben Mendelson does not go into any detail but says there were around 20 - 30 scenes that could have played out totally differently going by some of the things we have seen and not seen I’d say that it rings true.

I just had the Ultimate Visual guide delivered today It’s actually quite a god book. I have only been flicking through it. One of the interesting things that has grabbed my attention is some sort of cutting tool that the storm troopers would have been using to try and get to Jyn and Cassian in the Vault.

There is definitely a few bones and tidbits of info in it alluding to things we did not get to see. As others have stated a lot of made up stuff in there in terms of story.

I definitely like the Land speeder for the Galen Family on Lahmu called the Family Clunker raised an eyebrow. Something again that must have taken ages not only to design but also to build. Can’t remember seeing a land speeder

So much cool stuff that unfortunately we did not see in the film. My mind seriously boggles about it.

These guys are not covered in the slightest though, I have a feeling they might be have been commandeered and used in another film?

NeverarGreat said:

If you know something to be fake, your brain generates any number of reasons that it looks fake, even if they aren’t true or not noticeable to the average viewer.

I thought some of the Tarkin stuff was seamless, despite knowing it to be CG. If motion capture got good enough to capture the micromovements of facial muscles, I would feel a lot better about an actor using a ‘digital likeness’ of another actor (provided the actor or their estate were in agreement). In this case, the actor wearing the digital likeness would be translating much of their performance to the screen, even more than an actor with layers of prosthetics on their face.

Even beyond transmitting their facial micromovements (which I think didn’t happen with Tarkin) there is theatre. From ancient times there’s been usage of masks. Mostly rigid masks all througout history, in order to resemble someone/something that wasn’t there.

Then came prosthetics, which were used to resemble someone or something that wasn’t there.

And now it might be CGI, but the intention remains the same. In the case of Star Wars, provided that Tarkin doesn’t exist per se, the likeness of his original protraying actor is aimed at. Should this movie have been about Winston Churchill, why wouldn’t they just reconstruct his face based in historical data? I believe it would be in no way different than having an actor go through 6 hours of makeup a day just to resemble him, it’s the same principle than 25 centuries ago.

I find supposed ethical issues with this technology to be nonesense.

Now, that being said, I will also say that I’ve come to terms with the technology, which really is groundbreaking for the industry. It doesn’t look CGI at all. But it does look like a prosthetic. And yet it certainly doesn’t completely look like Peter Cushing as we’ll see. But, again, that’s not a problem of the technology (which I found to be almost flawless on Leia), but rather of the fact that this Tarkin doesn’t act as Peter Cushing, probably not for technical reasons but for the very fact that the MoCap source material might just not be likely enough.

http://imgur.com/dkzxA5M

As you can see here, there are some facial structures that might look a little different (Right image is the movie’s, middle is mine. I tweaked the proportion to fit Cushing’s rounder face), particularly the eyes (sky blue vs dark green?) and their expression. Thing is Tarkin back in 77 was a very very bad gentleman. He had sophisticated manners, and there’s a certain tiredness in his eyes. He’s not just the evil, determined-eyed guy that stands tall and firm all around. Nor is he the kind of “I talk and stare into the void cause I’m so evil” guy as here:

http://imgur.com/jUSwNYz (which is the peakpoint that really got me out of character)
http://imgur.com/jUSwNYz

Originally, his expressions were not those of someone who speaks decidedly, but those of someone who looks at you in the eye and frightens you because he is listening in-depth to you, and analysing you.

Reviewing ANH as I write, there’s not a single moment when he doens’t convey at least less than two emotions at a time with his expressions. For instance, when he says “enough of this [Vader, release him]” he sounds commanding, but he looks a little worried as well, etc.

Thing is, there’s no naturality to his acting just because the replacing actor didn’t get the character, or he wasn’t well directed, or (perhaps) this new technology will require a fuck load more work on behalf of the actors to pull a seamless impersonation. What I do know, is that this Tarkin looked a little too monolythic, 4 bits, in his acting; but truth to be told, I honestly put it all in the way the character was written (today’s blockbusters are more and more having the cartoonish all-evil villains just like back in the sixties) and a held back and not so good performance of the replacing actor mainly due to the relatively new ground and lack of reference this technology has to endure until its consolidation.

Best acting with this CGI will naturally be that of an old actor playing his younger self. Or even perhaps to have a special branch of acting-studies to be dedicated to physical impersonations just like it happened with voice impersonators.

But it will consolidate, I put some two cents on it. Hope they bring Alec Guinness as well

I’m ok with how they did Tarkin because I love the character. However, if you don’t see the difference between a mask of a person and a digital recreation of a person I don’t know what to tell you.

I hope they got permission/blessings from his estate or family or whatever.

TV’s Frink said:
I hope they got permission/blessings from his estate or family or whatever.

It’s the first thing they did.

I’m impressed by CGI Tarkin. Still not convinced by the technology but it’s reaching perfection. Funny thing is that Disney is trying to “fix” issues with the previous movies: TFA was partly based on rejected ideas for ROTJ regarding Han Solo, while R1 tries to give us something we (at least “I”) wanted to see during the prequels: more Tarkin. I know he’s good in TCW but it’s not the same as if Lucas had put him in the Republic Army in AOTC (assuming George wouldn’t have ridiculized his character…).

TV’s Frink said:

I’m ok with how they did Tarkin because I love the character. However, if you don’t see the difference between a mask of a person and a digital recreation of a person I don’t know what to tell you.

I hope they got permission/blessings from his estate or family or whatever.

What I said is that there’s no difference in what it means to the dramatic spectacle. The need to resemble someone has always been there througout the history of drama.

This is only a new means to achieve it.

Mithrandir said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’m ok with how they did Tarkin because I love the character. However, if you don’t see the difference between a mask of a person and a digital recreation of a person I don’t know what to tell you.

I hope they got permission/blessings from his estate or family or whatever.

What I said is that there’s no difference in what it means to the dramatic spectacle. The need to resemble someone has always been there througout the history of drama.

This is only a new means to achieve it.

Ok sorry, I tend to only skim really long posts.

Tobar said:

Mithrandir said:

Even beyond transmitting their facial micromovements (which I think didn’t happen with Tarkin)

yeah, i saw that too which begs the question, did they capture it, but then decide to tweak it by hand later? i get the sense that this is done quite often. Mo-Cap on day of, but constantly tweaked by the wireframe animators after the fact.

NeverarGreat said:

If you know something to be fake, your brain generates any number of reasons that it looks fake, even if they aren’t true or not noticeable to the average viewer.

I thought some of the Tarkin stuff was seamless, despite knowing it to be CG. If motion capture got good enough to capture the micromovements of facial muscles, I would feel a lot better about an actor using a ‘digital likeness’ of another actor (provided the actor or their estate were in agreement). In this case, the actor wearing the digital likeness would be translating much of their performance to the screen, even more than an actor with layers of prosthetics on their face.

I think the most noticeable thing is that when he talks, the muscles around his mount and jaw move in the same exact way every time making him look somewhat mechanical.

I’m still very impressed by the technical achievement and it will get better and there will be chances to improve on those scenes in special editions.

Mithrandir said:

NeverarGreat said:

If you know something to be fake, your brain generates any number of reasons that it looks fake, even if they aren’t true or not noticeable to the average viewer.

I thought some of the Tarkin stuff was seamless, despite knowing it to be CG. If motion capture got good enough to capture the micromovements of facial muscles, I would feel a lot better about an actor using a ‘digital likeness’ of another actor (provided the actor or their estate were in agreement). In this case, the actor wearing the digital likeness would be translating much of their performance to the screen, even more than an actor with layers of prosthetics on their face.

Even beyond transmitting their facial micromovements (which I think didn’t happen with Tarkin) there is theatre. From ancient times there’s been usage of masks. Mostly rigid masks all througout history, in order to resemble someone/something that wasn’t there.

Then came prosthetics, which were used to resemble someone or something that wasn’t there.

And now it might be CGI, but the intention remains the same. In the case of Star Wars, provided that Tarkin doesn’t exist per se, the likeness of his original protraying actor is aimed at. Should this movie have been about Winston Churchill, why wouldn’t they just reconstruct his face based in historical data? I believe it would be in no way different than having an actor go through 6 hours of makeup a day just to resemble him, it’s the same principle than 25 centuries ago.

I find supposed ethical issues with this technology to be nonesense.

Now, that being said, I will also say that I’ve come to terms with the technology, which really is groundbreaking for the industry. It doesn’t look CGI at all. But it does look like a prosthetic. And yet it certainly doesn’t completely look like Peter Cushing as we’ll see. But, again, that’s not a problem of the technology (which I found to be almost flawless on Leia), but rather of the fact that this Tarkin doesn’t act as Peter Cushing, probably not for technical reasons but for the very fact that the MoCap source material might just not be likely enough.

http://imgur.com/dkzxA5M

As you can see here, there are some facial structures that might look a little different (Right image is the movie’s, middle is mine. I tweaked the proportion to fit Cushing’s rounder face), particularly the eyes (sky blue vs dark green?) and their expression. Thing is Tarkin back in 77 was a very very bad gentleman. He had sophisticated manners, and there’s a certain tiredness in his eyes. He’s not just the evil, determined-eyed guy that stands tall and firm all around. Nor is he the kind of “I talk and stare into the void cause I’m so evil” guy as here:

http://imgur.com/jUSwNYz (which is the peakpoint that really got me out of character)
http://imgur.com/jUSwNYz

Originally, his expressions were not those of someone who speaks decidedly, but those of someone who looks at you in the eye and frightens you because he is listening in-depth to you, and analysing you.

Reviewing ANH as I write, there’s not a single moment when he doens’t convey at least less than two emotions at a time with his expressions. For instance, when he says “enough of this [Vader, release him]” he sounds commanding, but he looks a little worried as well, etc.

Thing is, there’s no naturality to his acting just because the replacing actor didn’t get the character, or he wasn’t well directed, or (perhaps) this new technology will require a fuck load more work on behalf of the actors to pull a seamless impersonation. What I do know, is that this Tarkin looked a little too monolythic, 4 bits, in his acting; but truth to be told, I honestly put it all in the way the character was written (today’s blockbusters are more and more having the cartoonish all-evil villains just like back in the sixties) and a held back and not so good performance of the replacing actor mainly due to the relatively new ground and lack of reference this technology has to endure until its consolidation.

Best acting with this CGI will naturally be that of an old actor playing his younger self. Or even perhaps to have a special branch of acting-studies to be dedicated to physical impersonations just like it happened with voice impersonators.

But it will consolidate, I put some two cents on it. Hope they bring Alec Guinness as well

Yeah its not such an ethical abomination is it? I too question whether mo cap is at the point where it can capture micro movements of the face. I would think so but perhaps it is more work and more money than it is worth. I dont know.

It seems that overacting is currently the only way to bring life to CG characters. Golum is an example of that. He is overacted and it is fitting for the character. Same goes for Andy Serkis’ portrayal of Caesar in the contemporary Ape films. In contrast, Snoke looks somewhat wooden. CG does not seem to capture subdued performances well.

TavorX said:

Saw this for the first time last night, so here’s some mind vomit:
Rogue One happened to elevate my appreciation towards the original trilogy and The Force Awakens. The directors behind those films are WAY better at knowing how to pace their scenes from start to finish. Like seriously, Rogue One has really awful pacing aside from the last act. There was simply little cohesion and felt way too rocky when we transitioned from one location to another.

It’s not just the pacing between scenes. Much worse was the pacing within scenes. I’m going to get into this a bit more when I post my seriously detailed 2nd-watch review today, which will include both good and bad.

OK so like I said, I saw Rogue One a second time last night. I feel like I can give a more informed, detailed review this time, but I do apologize in advance for the length of these posts.

The film starts out with an OK first scene but an extremely poor first act. I think the complaint about Krennic landing a mile away from everything is justified, but I’m not going to get stuck on something like that too much. Compared to the rest of the film, this first scene feels like a visual breath of fresh air. Jyn disappears down some hidden tunnel a few moments later, and from there our Star Wars story gets underway.

After the title “Rogue One” appears on screen (where I would have liked to hear a more rousing score), we skip ahead many years to a cacophony of scenes and settings that read like a ****ing travel brochure. Meaningless superimposed title this, meaningless superimposed titled that. The first act was, quite frankly, very poorly put together. Jyn is grown up, but we only get to see her in her ordinary world for a minute or two. Compare that to Luke in the OT or Rey in TFA, and you see the film never gives us the chance to really get to know her or care about her like we properly should. We get re-introduced to Mon Mothma and the Rebel Alliance, and I really like Mon Mothma in this movie. I feel like she was severely underused. Could she have been a main character even? Yes, I think so. One of the things the film did get right was visually recreating the look and feel of the Rebel Base on Yavin 4, so I do want to give credit where credit is due.

The final thing I remember about all of these glued together expository scenes in the first act was the part where we get introduced to Cassian, a rebel spy. He basically outs himself as a morally ambiguous character–at best–when he kills an innocent guy who just provided him with vital information. Was this a mercy kill? If so, the film needed to show regret or some kind of emotion to get that idea across. Since there was nothing like that, I can only assume he didn’t care about killing the guy, which makes his character inconsistent with many of the actions he takes later in the film.

And oh yeah, I guess there was the pointless nonsense with Saw and the Imperial pilot on Jedha. I have no idea at all what this film was trying to accomplish with Saw, but his character was completely useless. What is the point of his breathing apparatus? When you look back at the OT and the creation of Vader, his breathing and his suit and his machine-like qualities were designed for very specific dramatic purposes. They weren’t just cool characterizations that people thought up. But what is the purpose of Saw gasping for air into an oxygen mask, when he’s on screen for like two or three scenes? Just to make him different? Just to sell toys? And then there was the part where we saw another prequel-like fake CGI rathtar and yeah, all of this was among the worst parts of the entire film for me.

Anyway, that sums up act one. I’ll move onto act 2 and more thoughts in the next post, but I want to wrap up here by pointing out where I think the filmmakers got this introduction wrong: why are we cutting back and forth among 10 different storylines in the first fifteen minutes of the movie? The main narrative eventually coalesces on Jedha in the next part…why couldn’t all or nearly all of the first act have taken place on Jedha? Where did virtually all of the action in act one take place in Star Wars? Tatooine, right? What about Empire Strikes Back? It was Hoth. What about Return of the Jedi? Jabba’s Palace. And in The Force Awakens? Jakku.

There’s just no reason to jar the audience with all of these different settings at the beginning of a movie. I don’t even remember what the name of the trading post planet was, but it was on screen for five seconds and one scene in the entire movie and that was it. What’s the point? That’s just bad filmmaking.

Everything should have been re-written so that we start off with a strong narrative that revolves around principal characters and one world: Jedha. And that’s where I will pick up next in part 2.

SilverWook said:

Tyrphanax said:

SilverWook said:

I presume the severe damage to Saw’s body was because of the Empire, and that drives his more ruthless style of rebellion. Remember, one of the Rebel leaders actually wants him assassinated and tasks Cassian to do the deed.

Cassian killing his informant was to keep him from talking and facilitate his own escape. I don’t think he wanted to do it, but the guy was freaking out, and didn’t leave him any choice. Do we need to see regret when James Bond kills someone? It’s part of the job description.

Er, weren’t they tasking Cassian to kill Galen, not Saw?

Were they? Guess I have to see the movie again! 😉

yeah it was Galen. in either case, your conclusion of needing to see the moving again is not wrong. its the right answer for any question! 😃

TavorX said:

Hm, so in that case, Saw appears even more delusional when he says something along the lines of, “You’re here to kill me?”

…but still, I got the impression that the Rebel Alliance viewed Saw and his band of terrorists as an issue, so it would benefit them if Saw could be killed before doing anything else reckless. Am I wrong?

they viewed him as too extreme, yes. but i don’t think the alliance would ever choose to have him killed. maybe a rogue (lol, haha, see what i did?) commander would, just like they did with galen, but not as the alliance.

and Saw is a bit delusional no doubt, too much killing of others will make you paranoid like that.