Sign In

Rogue One * Spoilers * Thread — Page 73

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

TV’s Frink said:

Lord Haseo said:

mapet318 said:
TESB
ANH
RO
TFA
RotJ
RotS
TPM
AotC

Switch TFA and RO and that is literally my order.

I’m glad to see this movie isn’t as divisive as TFA was. I mean when was the last time Star Wars fans agreed on something that didn’t involve a film sucking?

Yeah, it’s been pretty refreshing how even the loudest anti-TFA voices have been supportive of RO…except for one ridiculous troll, of course.

Part of it is that some of the loud voices aren’t even out. By nature, the spin-off isn’t garnering as much analysis, critical or otherwise. And I think the stakes are lower too with a spin-off, and the expectations aren’t sky high coming off so long a wait with TFA.

It may not be as great an event as TFA, but in no way is R1 flying under the radar. Nor has it been under marketed or underexposed to film going audiences. Here in 2016 there could be no greater film. If there are indeed people out there dying to bash R1 as they did TFA, this film has enough world wide exposure to have drawn them out.

I think R1 has broad appeal. Not everyone will like it better than TFA, though many do; however, there is a near conensus that it is good.

Author
Time

luckydube56 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Every time I see someone complain about how safe TFA was, and then I think of all the shit Disney got for a female lead, a black co-lead, and a Hispanic co-co-lead, when I think of the film killing off Han, when I think of the way the film tore up the ending of Jedi and tore up Han and Leia’s relationship (both in good, realistic ways), the way that Luke didn’t appear until the last scene…I have to laugh my ass off at that person.

Those weren’t really risks were they? They are an attempt to be more inclusive as the times would dictate any film with a large cast should be.

It’s pretty much a retro fit of Star Wars with an infusion of diversity. Diversity + a new story line altogether…now that would be a risk.

As for killing off Han, I guess you could say it was a risk. Every risk has a downside and they got the downside of it due to execution. K2SOs death is much more meaningful.

Killing off Han Solo in 1983 would’ve been a risk but in 2015 not so much. The killing of Han in The Force Awakens was still impactful though. I would’ve liked to have seen Return Of The Jedi the way that it was originally intended to be. It was originally going to be as dark as The Empire Strikes Back.

Author
Time

luckydube56 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Every time I see someone complain about how safe TFA was, and then I think of all the shit Disney got for a female lead, a black co-lead, and a Hispanic co-co-lead, when I think of the film killing off Han, when I think of the way the film tore up the ending of Jedi and tore up Han and Leia’s relationship (both in good, realistic ways), the way that Luke didn’t appear until the last scene…I have to laugh my ass off at that person.

Those weren’t really risks were they? They are an attempt to be more inclusive as the times would dictate any film with a large cast should be.

It’s pretty much a retro fit of Star Wars with an infusion of diversity.

Yeah, I agree with that. It’s not a risk just because some idiots who are out of step with the times got mad about it.

As for killing off Han, I guess you could say it was a risk.

I really can’t imagine that was a surprise to many people. I thought it was a given that Han would bite it as soon as Harrison signed on.

Ray’s Lounge
Biggs in ANH edit idea
ROTJ opening edit idea

Author
Time

Character development =/= backstory.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think they needed to develop every single character. I just wish at least a few were more focused. It’s tricky when you have so many characters with so many different elements. The Krennic/Erso friend/foe dynamic hinted at but that never goes anywhere. The Saw Gerrera/terrorist aspect of the Rebellion of which is clearly there but otherwise completely unexplored. Jyn’s on-again, off-again rebellion and risking everything for the greater good (and how that relates to Galen) which is there but basically brushed over. The Cassian conflict which is very solid but doesn’t have any sort of meaningful resolution in regards to the moral dilemma of a violent Rebellion. Bodhi Rook and his connection to Galen/why he defected. Chirrut and Baze and anything about their religion/trust in the Force beyond what we can assume based on prior knowledge of the concept. These are all interesting things but far too unexplored. Some scenario in which many arcs are tied together with some thematic coherence would have been best route.

I do too think the film could have been longer. Team based war films often reach near 2 and a half hours and this had the leeway to do so as a standalone.

Author
Time

ray_afraid said:

luckydube56 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Every time I see someone complain about how safe TFA was, and then I think of all the shit Disney got for a female lead, a black co-lead, and a Hispanic co-co-lead, when I think of the film killing off Han, when I think of the way the film tore up the ending of Jedi and tore up Han and Leia’s relationship (both in good, realistic ways), the way that Luke didn’t appear until the last scene…I have to laugh my ass off at that person.

Those weren’t really risks were they? They are an attempt to be more inclusive as the times would dictate any film with a large cast should be.

It’s pretty much a retro fit of Star Wars with an infusion of diversity.

Yeah, I agree with that. It’s not a risk just because some idiots who are out of step with the times got mad about it.

As for killing off Han, I guess you could say it was a risk.

I really can’t imagine that was a surprise to many people. I thought it was a given that Han would bite it as soon as Harrison signed on.

Good point. It really wasnt a risk at all.

Author
Time

Tobar said:

mapet318 said:

  • Loved all of the ties to the Prequel trilogy/Rebels - Bail, the Clone Turbo Tank

The Juggernaut was originally conceived for The Empire Strikes Back.


Very interesting.

Author
Time

luckydube56 said:

DominicCobb said:

TV’s Frink said:

Lord Haseo said:

mapet318 said:
TESB
ANH
RO
TFA
RotJ
RotS
TPM
AotC

Switch TFA and RO and that is literally my order.

I’m glad to see this movie isn’t as divisive as TFA was. I mean when was the last time Star Wars fans agreed on something that didn’t involve a film sucking?

Yeah, it’s been pretty refreshing how even the loudest anti-TFA voices have been supportive of RO…except for one ridiculous troll, of course.

Part of it is that some of the loud voices aren’t even out. By nature, the spin-off isn’t garnering as much analysis, critical or otherwise. And I think the stakes are lower too with a spin-off, and the expectations aren’t sky high coming off so long a wait with TFA.

It may not be as great an event as TFA, but in no way is R1 flying under the radar. Nor has it been under marketed or underexposed to film going audiences. Here in 2016 there could be no greater film. If there are indeed people out there dying to bash R1 as they did TFA, this film has enough world wide exposure to have drawn them out.

I think R1 has broad appeal. Not everyone will like it better than TFA, though many do; however, there is a near conensus that it is good.

I’m not saying at all that RO is flying under the radar, that’s plainly untrue. I just mean the sheer fact of Episode VII meant people in general would be more critical and have more to say.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

Character development =/= backstory.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think they needed to develop every single character. I just wish at least a few were more focused. It’s tricky when you have so many characters with so many different elements. The Krennic/Erso friend/foe dynamic hinted at but that never goes anywhere. The Saw Gerrera/terrorist aspect of the Rebellion of which is clearly there but otherwise completely unexplored. Jyn’s on-again, off-again rebellion and risking everything for the greater good (and how that relates to Galen) which is there but basically brushed over. The Cassian conflict which is very solid but doesn’t have any sort of meaningful resolution in regards to the moral dilemma of a violent Rebellion. Bodhi Rook and his connection to Galen/why he defected. Chirrut and Baze and anything about their religion/trust in the Force beyond what we can assume based on prior knowledge of the concept. These are all interesting things but far too unexplored. Some scenario in which many arcs are tied together with some thematic coherence would have been best route.

I do too think the film could have been longer. Team based war films often reach near 2 and a half hours and this had the leeway to do so as a standalone.

I think you have a great point. And I do not laugh my ass off at your post. 😃

All the characters were merely touched upon. However, the Rebellion has always been seen as a faceless and nameless collective of disposable people whose deaths were more or less meaningless. R1 finally gives some depth to the Rebellion even if its not enough as say Han Solo. It lends some sense of sacrifice and consequence to their deaths. The characters of this film will never stand along side the titans of the Galaxy but they were never meant to. R1 is a cross section view of the Rebellion.

Perhaps there could have been more but it stands on its own and as a supplement.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Every time I see someone complain about how safe TFA was, and then I think of all the shit Disney got for a female lead, a black co-lead, and a Hispanic co-co-lead, when I think of the film killing off Han, when I think of the way the film tore up the ending of Jedi and tore up Han and Leia’s relationship (both in good, realistic ways), the way that Luke didn’t appear until the last scene…I have to laugh my ass off at that person.

THIS.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

luckydube56 said:

DominicCobb said:

TV’s Frink said:

Lord Haseo said:

mapet318 said:
TESB
ANH
RO
TFA
RotJ
RotS
TPM
AotC

Switch TFA and RO and that is literally my order.

I’m glad to see this movie isn’t as divisive as TFA was. I mean when was the last time Star Wars fans agreed on something that didn’t involve a film sucking?

Yeah, it’s been pretty refreshing how even the loudest anti-TFA voices have been supportive of RO…except for one ridiculous troll, of course.

Part of it is that some of the loud voices aren’t even out. By nature, the spin-off isn’t garnering as much analysis, critical or otherwise. And I think the stakes are lower too with a spin-off, and the expectations aren’t sky high coming off so long a wait with TFA.

It may not be as great an event as TFA, but in no way is R1 flying under the radar. Nor has it been under marketed or underexposed to film going audiences. Here in 2016 there could be no greater film. If there are indeed people out there dying to bash R1 as they did TFA, this film has enough world wide exposure to have drawn them out.

I think R1 has broad appeal. Not everyone will like it better than TFA, though many do; however, there is a near conensus that it is good.

I’m not saying at all that RO is flying under the radar, that’s plainly untrue. I just mean the sheer fact of Episode VII meant people in general would be more critical and have more to say.

Understood. But R1 certainly has crossed whatever threshold of popularity that exists to draw the haters.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Character development =/= backstory.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think they needed to develop every single character. I just wish at least a few were more focused. It’s tricky when you have so many characters with so many different elements. The Krennic/Erso friend/foe dynamic hinted at but that never goes anywhere. The Saw Gerrera/terrorist aspect of the Rebellion of which is clearly there but otherwise completely unexplored. Jyn’s on-again, off-again rebellion and risking everything for the greater good (and how that relates to Galen) which is there but basically brushed over. The Cassian conflict which is very solid but doesn’t have any sort of meaningful resolution in regards to the moral dilemma of a violent Rebellion. Bodhi Rook and his connection to Galen/why he defected. Chirrut and Baze and anything about their religion/trust in the Force beyond what we can assume based on prior knowledge of the concept. These are all interesting things but far too unexplored. Some scenario in which many arcs are tied together with some thematic coherence would have been best route.

I do too think the film could have been longer. Team based war films often reach near 2 and a half hours and this had the leeway to do so as a standalone.

Exactly. Character wise this film is indicative of the PT in that the characters and their interactions could have been so much better if a couple of things had been different. Though I like that Rogue One sets up other films to have characters do morally ambiguous things as that’s something the films have been needing for a long time. I just hope the rest of the ST can do it better.

Author
Time

Well, speaking about attachment to characters… As much as I expected it to happen, Jyn and Cassian’s death was, to me, the most emotional scene in a Star Wars movie since watching Return of the Jedi for the first time. Though I can’t clearly remember, I do not think even Qui-Gon’s death at the end of TPM resonated with me so much, and I was a kid back in '99.

While most people appeared to cheer when Darth Vader started butchering the rebels on the flagship, at the point I was (surprisingly) smirking, knowing he would fail. RO’s crescendo is when the Death Star shoots at Scariff. Not that I did not thoroughly enjoy the several minutes after that but they were bittersweet.

Something that irks me a bit is some people actually consider some of Jyn’s scenes to not be “strong” enough. I was highly skeptical of both the character and Felicity Jones prior to seeing the movie but I see not fault.

Take <i>“we’ll take the next chance… and the next… until we succeed, or the chances are spent”</i> line. Some friends were discussing after the movie she didn’t sound powerful and confident enough, rather being scared.

Er, really? Going on a suicide mission against a well defended military facility of a galaxy-wide Empire and you’re not supposed to be scared? Sure…

Author
Time

I felt the characters were sufficiently developed for their various purposes within the movie. We spend as much time with them as we do LUKE/LEIA/HAN in ANH.

I was hoping that they wouldn’t ALL be killed off, but there might have been the potential of sequels where they act around the OT (imagine Blaze in the ground battle on hoth)

Author
Time

ben_danger said:

I felt the characters were sufficiently developed for their various purposes within the movie. We spend as much time with them as we do LUKE/LEIA/HAN in ANH.

What exactly do we learn about Chirrut Îmwe, Baze and Bodhi Rook other than the templates for their characters? Not much…Can’t say the same for Luke, Han, Leia, Rey, Finn and Kylo Ren.

Author
Time

Lord Haseo said:

ben_danger said:

I felt the characters were sufficiently developed for their various purposes within the movie. We spend as much time with them as we do LUKE/LEIA/HAN in ANH.

What exactly do we learn about Chirrut Îmwe, Baze and Bodhi Rook other than the templates for their characters? Not much…Can’t say the same for Luke, Han, Leia, Rey, Finn and Kylo Ren.

What do we learn about Chewbacca and R2D2 in ANH? We don’t need to have some sort of comprehensive emotional arc for each character necessarily.

In the case of Baze and Chirrut, I found the theme of renewed faith quite resounding - especially as they live in a universe where the Jedi have just gone extinct. Bodhi is constantly terrified - but then does something brave and feels fulfilled - almost like a watered down Han I guess (selfish - selfless).

As someone said earlier, the film is really about the Empire and the Rebellion, where as the within the OT they are just merely components of the larger story.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Lord Haseo said:

ben_danger said:

I felt the characters were sufficiently developed for their various purposes within the movie. We spend as much time with them as we do LUKE/LEIA/HAN in ANH.

What exactly do we learn about Chirrut Îmwe, Baze and Bodhi Rook other than the templates for their characters? Not much…Can’t say the same for Luke, Han, Leia, Rey, Finn and Kylo Ren.

Why do people insist on asking questions like this?

What do you learn about Luke Skywalker?

Not much but you go on a journey with him that is about it and he has 3 films as the main character. If you were expecting a historical epic about someone you will not find it in Star Wars films.

Go and watch Ben-Hur or something?

Author
Time

ben_danger said:

Lord Haseo said:

ben_danger said:

I felt the characters were sufficiently developed for their various purposes within the movie. We spend as much time with them as we do LUKE/LEIA/HAN in ANH.

What exactly do we learn about Chirrut Îmwe, Baze and Bodhi Rook other than the templates for their characters? Not much…Can’t say the same for Luke, Han, Leia, Rey, Finn and Kylo Ren.

What do we learn about Chewbacca and R2D2 in ANH? We don’t need to have some sort of comprehensive emotional arc for each character necessarily.

If Chewie and R2 were “normal” characters your comparison would be solid but there is a language barrier that stops characters like that from being developed properly. A better comparison would be Lando but even he in ESB has more going on under the hood than both Baze and Chirrut.

Bodhi is constantly terrified - but then does something brave and feels fulfilled - almost like a watered down Han I guess (selfish - selfless).

More like a watered down Finn. Han is motivated by pure selfishness while Finn and Bodhi are motivated by fear.

Author
Time

Ronster said:

Lord Haseo said:

ben_danger said:

I felt the characters were sufficiently developed for their various purposes within the movie. We spend as much time with them as we do LUKE/LEIA/HAN in ANH.

What exactly do we learn about Chirrut Îmwe, Baze and Bodhi Rook other than the templates for their characters? Not much…Can’t say the same for Luke, Han, Leia, Rey, Finn and Kylo Ren.

Why do people insist on asking questions like this?

What do you learn about Luke Skywalker?

Are you serious? Luke Skywalker is a farm boy who hates his existence mostly due to the fact that a lot of his friends have gone on to join the Rebellion. He wants a better life but of course is tied to the moisture farm which indicates that Luke is fiercely loyal. I mean I can keep on going but do I really need to?

Not much but you go on a journey with him that is about it and he has 3 films as the main character. If you were expecting a historical epic about someone you will not find it in Star Wars films.

You must not be watching the same films I do.

Author
Time

Bobo Jameson said:

MalàStrana said:

A complete negation of Star Wars in a boring and empty movie (almost nothing happens during the first 90 minutes), where characters are never constructed, have no story arcs, with terrible actors who deliver dialogues that are laughable (“save the rebellion… save the dream”… “rebellions are built on hope”… “I hate sand, it’s…” no, not this one, for a second I thought so…). It even beats Lucas on his own field of destroying continuity (rebels will become dumb and forget how to destroy Star Destroyer… so Leia is just above the planet where the shit happens ?.. oh, the death star is already operational then… so Tarkin is no longer arrogant at the end of SW, he’s plain stupid when we consider the efficiency of the rebel fleet: man, you really should evacuate you know !), but that’s not the worst, I can live with minor inconsistencies, as long as they are put in a decent movie. Rogue One is not. Not even close. Not only a terrible SW: it’s a terrible movie on its own. You want a true war movie, with emotion and war scenes with an insane creativity achievement, with layered characters and powerful themes ? Go watch Hacksaw Ridge. Rogue one is a dry piece of shit. In comparaison the awful episode 7 looks good (movie that I quite enjoyed at my first screening). I don’t blame Gareth: he never had the choice to make the good war movie he had in mind, the gap in quality with his interesting Godzilla is huge. I won’t even mention the lame fanservice (“blue milk… blue milk everywhere !”) and the ethical issue of recreating dead performances (great cgi, not perfect yet but this technology is amazing… pointless but amazing). I wanted so badly to like it, at least a few sequences, at least a few shots.

The special edition was the first stroke, but it still was Star Wars. The PT was a disappointment partially saved by the unique qualities of its third act in spite of key sequences completely failed, and it was for me the end of Star Wars, the second stroke, but it still was Star Wars, bad but unique and fascinating. The Disney Era is no longer Star Wars: the “Star Wars body snatcher” era. An insult to the saga and, by extension, to the Cinema. I’m really sad, but now it’s time for me to let it go.

0/10

Yet another troll asshole.

And you took the bait. When I say play nice, I mean it.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

The lack of backstory and deep character development is, to me, one of the stronger points of the movie. That said: I understand how some fans, many perhaps, may be disappointed or find it lacking. For the younger fans who came into the franchise at the Prequels, they’ve always had a Lucas-controlled series where every bit of minutia is backstoried and tied into the main narrative and characters. It’s exactly how Lucas shrunk the universe and turned it into “a solar system far far away”.

This isn’t a Lucas film. We don’t get to know the characters’ histories or why they may or may not know each other. That’s perfectly ok with me. In fact, I prefer it. Star Wars77 had all sorts of hinted- at pasts, but it didn’t get bogged down in explaining them. As someone mentioned earlier, we don’t know thing one about Han & Chewie, how they met, or how long they’ve been together. Yet they are wildly popular.

Sometimes people are who they are and don’t need an arc. The Rogue One team accepted a mission and they worked together to see it through. They didn’t take the mission for personal growth or to become The A Team. They had a job to do. I don’t know the story behind every person I work with every day (nor do I care). We have a common goal and we put in the work to accomplish it. We’re not growing. We’re working.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

You’re killing me, Smalls.

Author
Time

Alderaan said:

Really interested to hear what people think about R1 who didn’t like TFA. This review has me once again leaning to not seeing any more fake SW movies:

<<<But the injunction not to ruin anyone’s good time by “revealing spoilers and detailed story points” is itself revealing, an indication of the meager and disposable pleasures this movie is meant to provide, and also of the low regard its makers have for the audience. It hasn’t always been this way, of course. The first “Star Wars” trilogy had a fresh, insurgent energy, and learning the names of all those planets and galactic adventurers has seemed, to generations of fans, like a new and special kind of fun.

Now, though, it is starting to feel like drudgery, a schoolbook exercise in a course of study that has no useful application and that will never end.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/movies/star-wars-rogue-one-review.html?_r=0

I wasn’t a fan of TFA. I mean I thought it was OK, nothing more. And I think Rogue One, which I have seen a few minutes ago, was much better. But there were way too many "hey look, you remember this, right? " moments.

Author
Time

So, can anybody tell me what was the point of Forest Whitaker’s character? I mean if you would cut him out of the movie it wouldn’t affect the story at all. The same goes for the subplot with the tentacle monster - why was it there? It looked like they wanted to make us think that the pilot lost his mind and will do something insane in the last act, but they went nowhere with it, he just looked weird in one scene but was completely OK in the next shot.

And also the movie suffered from the same “too much shit going on at the same time” syndrome as 99% of modern Hollywood movies, but still, it was really enjoyable. I don’t know why, but I suddenly want to watch Harmy’s version of Star Wars (aka Episode 4) 😃

Author
Time

Another great point. The most important impact he had on the film is the transferring of information to the audience that Jyn was abandoned by him because people we’re starting to piece together who she really was. Other than that and the “Save The Rebellion…Save the dream” line he is completely useless just like Lor San Tekka in TFA.

Author
Time

pittrek said:

So, can anybody tell me what was the point of Forest Whitaker’s character? I mean if you would cut him out of the movie it wouldn’t affect the story at all. The same goes for the subplot with the tentacle monster - why was it there? It looked like they wanted to make us think that the pilot lost his mind and will do something insane in the last act, but they went nowhere with it, he just looked weird in one scene but was completely OK in the next shot.

And also the movie suffered from the same “too much shit going on at the same time” syndrome as 99% of modern Hollywood movies, but still, it was really enjoyable. I don’t know why, but I suddenly want to watch Harmy’s version of Star Wars (aka Episode 4) 😃

He was mostly there to give a reason as to why it had to be Jyn Erso, really. It wouldn’t matter who sent the message, but she was important because she wouldn’t be killed the second she walked in the door. Arguably, you could just give Galen a tie to an extremist group and leave out Saw Gerrara, but it gave the group a face to more clearly interact with.

I don’t think the tentacle monster was there to be a subplot unto itself, so much as give a very sci-fi method of showing how unhinged his character is.