He’s the canon guy. I’m sure he has other jobs, but that’s his only purpose for Lucasfilm.
All he is is an overpaid nobody whose only job is to troll on twitter and decide whether or not Yarna d’al’ Gargan is canon or not.
The most likely conclusion to draw from all of this is just that Pablo Hidalgo is being a jerk.
And people who like the prequels are somewhat trolled by the regular members here as well. I like fanedits of them and I don’t care how funny you all think that is.
Yep.
It was just an example.
The more I hear about this Paul guy, the less I like him. Kudos to him for at least saying something about it.
He’s typical of the Star Wars fans that act condescending towards everyone that doesn’t worship every single decision Lucasfilm makes.
I feel like people that don’t like TFA or Rogue One are being treated like trolls. There seems to be little distinction between users that have legitimate and clearly articulated gripes and people that bitched constantly and rudely about how they’re the worst things ever.
well, there is a third category, a user who for the first time mentions a gripe they have, but the rest of us have heard that gripe a hundred times and know that the gripe is not actually legitimate, because it stems from a misunderstanding of something that actually happened in the film.
This is the kind of attitude I’m talking about. It reminds a lot of prequel fans on TFN.
Sadly for the rest of us, it is hard to know when this third category happens, so we often react as if someone is trolling.
It’s very clear when someone is trolling or being intentionally provocative.
I feel like people that don’t like TFA or Rogue One are being treated like trolls. There seems to be little distinction between users that have legitimate and clearly articulated gripes and people that bitched constantly and rudely about how they’re the worst things ever.
Sith and Clones are awful, but as far as pacing goes, Jedi isn’t much better. It has more heart, soul, and interesting things in it, but technically speaking, it isn’t much better than the prequels as a film I don’t think.
Oh, I messed that up, sorry.
I’m an atheist and I’ll leave it at that.
Good for you. I’m not. Good for me. Nobody is complaining about the guy being an atheist. Being an atheist is okay. We’re complaining about being an asshole about it. The kind of atheism that condescends and laughs at any other viewpoint and judges not being an atheist as being of less intelligence. And there are plenty like that, just as there are many who believe in god that condemn those that don’t. You can’t concretely prove either way so there’s no reason to be snobby about your beliefs.
So yeah as long as you aren’t an asshole about it nobody will mind.
Oh I’m an asshole, my post history on here kind of confirms that and more on blu-ray.com, but I’d rather argue about movies, music, video games, books, food, and history. Never politics or religion in person or online and I stay out of those threads, even when I troll on 4Chan. Would rather get recommendations for what I’d rather discuss.
In fact, hardly anyone knows I’m an atheist because I don’t even consider it worthwhile to bring up in conversation and I completely avoid it.
I guess I didn’t know that was enough. It was in the what are you reading? thread right after he was banned the first time.
Yes, he was certainly not. He also admitted to being a 4chan troll which is the bottom of the barrel as far as humanity goes.
Speaking of that Halloween set, is there any way other than that set to get the first movie with the original mono track? Because I’m really not that interested in the rest of the set. What extras are exclusive to it?
The American version of the 35th anniversary blu ray has the mono track.
As someone who can never remember how to properly format the sigh with asterisks on it, I see each and every sigh as a reminder of my incapability to do the same.
Love, Rey O’er Me
It’s a relief that Moore lost (I’m shocked, actually). That said, the fact that it was so close, and that someone that awful still can garner 49% of the vote, shows that southern bible belt is as strong as ever.
Yep. I’m shocked but relieved that Moore lost. I’m quite stunned actually.
If R1 didn’t even attempt it, why blame it for not being character-driven? Or does every movie need to be character driven?
“At least The Phantom Menace tried to make a step-in-the-poop joke that isn’t completely tasteless, they horribly failed, but at least they tried. I can’t say the same of Citizen Kane.”
R1 barely attempted to have characters at all. If the Death Star and other iconic Star Wars imagery weren’t in it, then nothing about the film would be even remotely memorable.
And your analogy is not worth addressing.
You still didn’t answer if every movie needs to be character-driven.
Of course not, but it is important when the main plot isn’t compelling or interesting, especially since we know exactly how it’s going to turn out. We know they’ll get the plans, so it would seem logical to have it be character driven since the main plot is straightforward and already spoiled.
R1 was advertised as a war movie in the Star Wars universe and I think the comparison is quite fitting. It focuses on a small part of the whole, it isn’t really about character development and the outcome is known by practically everyone.
One of the most important elements of an effective war movie is a sense of empathy for the characters. Whether they’re motivated by duty and patriotism or they’re conflicted or just caught in the middle of a violent situation, their struggle is often what makes the story compelling. A war movie that kind of compares to R1 is Black Hawk Down since that had a lot of characters with very little development, but at least with BHD each one had a clear and unique personality and we got a sense with most of them that they had lives and aspirations beyond the firefights in Mogadishu (the centralized location also helped in BHD, R1 is all over the place). All the characters in Rogue One seem pretty professional and for all I know none of them have any real purpose outside of this mission.
For me, it’s perfectly fine that R1 didn’t attempt to be more than that, so it shouldn’t be judged by a standard that it didn’t even intend to reach.
Why shouldn’t it be? A Haunted House wasn’t intending to reach any standard, so should we not judge it? I do get what you’re saying, I think. I agree that we shouldn’t try to harp on about how R1 wasn’t “fun” enough or something like that since obviously that wasn’t its tone. I’m not trying to criticize it that way, I’m trying to articulate where I think R1 failed as a film, war movie or otherwise.
It was always meant to tell a straight-forward story, that we already know. The main selling point is to show how it happend.
It doesn’t tell a straight-forward story. I think TFA was a lot more straightforward than R1. It tries at times to incorporate characterization with Jyn and the lead guy talking about trust, and feels out-of-place given that they’re just two people on assignment together. Forrest Whitaker is very convoluted and questionable. Why he decides to sacrifice himself is a complete mystery; he basically commits suicide when there’s no reason for him to do so. The Chinese monks have no real relevance to much of anything as far as the story goes. The film also very clearly expects emotional responses towards the characters, or at least it seems that way given the execution of their death scenes.
I think that almost every movie should have you caring about the characters one way or the other. Having boring characters is generally a sign of bad film-making. But not every movie needs to advance primarily by characters going through a phase of big changes, which is what I would understand by character-driven.
My phrasing was a bit off, but R1 didn’t seem to make much effort to have compelling characters. Most were without personality and the ones that were interesting got little focus.
That’s a different issue, then. And all I can say is, well, yeah, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
Which characters do you think are compelling. And why?
Maybe a movie about stealing an enigma machine from the Nazis? Doesn’t that sound exciting, even though we already know the outcome?
It does sound really interesting, but since we know the outcome it would take more than an extremely dour (aside from distracting fan service) script involving stoic characters with little tangible motivation. R1 doesn’t tell a story beyond detailing a plot that we already know the outcome of. Although since this is more specific and less known, there’s more tension there.
But it is in the star wars universe. And we know what the death star is.
I know. All tension and excitement is predicated on knowing and appreciating iconic Star Wars images. It’s very similar to Star Trek Into Darkness, which is another movie I kind of like and would be the best example of what I’d compare this to (although I’d put Into Darkness above R1) or the recent Bond movie, SPECTRE, which is far far worse than R1.
You can officially put me on the fence.
A foot on each side? Standing directly on it? Sitting on it, and if so which side are your feet dangling?"
Do you actually think that the R1 plot would be compelling had it not been littered with Star Wars imagery? Take away the Death Star and replace it with some other space device and I don’t think anyone would have been interested.
I actually like a number of things in R1. I think it’s better than TFA and has some valuable stuff in it. Visually, the film is stunning. There are some fantastic action sequences and it’s well directed overall.
What, take away the very thing the movie is about? You are not making much sense.
“Rogue one: the movie about the death star plans, but really it is just a long character study staring Dr evazan, and there is a giant basket instead of a death star.”
Yeah, that’s not at all what I’m saying. Thanks for oversimplifying it to make me sound like an idiot, though. I really appreciate that. What I’m saying is, the only reason that the Death Star plans are compelling is because we all know the Death Star and we know all the iconic imagery. If Rogue One weren’t in the Star Wars universe but was still about these exact same characters doing the exact same thing except they were fighting bad guys that weren’t stormtroopers and were looking for plans for a planet-destroying vessel that wasn’t the Death Star, this movie would not be very compelling. I know that’s my opinion, but I’m trying to ask if anyone here would honestly think that this exact same movie, without the Star Wars imagery, would be even remotely interesting.
Snoke-a-Cola
Do you actually think that the R1 plot would be compelling had it not been littered with Star Wars imagery? Take away the Death Star and replace it with some other space device and I don’t think anyone would have been interested.
I actually like a number of things in R1. I think it’s better than TFA and has some valuable stuff in it. Visually, the film is stunning. There are some fantastic action sequences and it’s well directed overall.
Yes but it was still too close a race. Someone like Moore shouldn’t be able to get anywhere near close to being a elected to the US Senate.
It’s Alabama dude.
2017 dude, and someone who objected to removal of segregationist language from a state constitution has just barely lost being elected to the US Senate.
That’s not surprising at all. The Bible Belt hasn’t changed much.
If R1 didn’t even attempt it, why blame it for not being character-driven? Or does every movie need to be character driven?
“At least The Phantom Menace tried to make a step-in-the-poop joke that isn’t completely tasteless, they horribly failed, but at least they tried. I can’t say the same of Citizen Kane.”
R1 barely attempted to have characters at all. If the Death Star and other iconic Star Wars imagery weren’t in it, then nothing about the film would be even remotely memorable.
And your analogy is not worth addressing.
You still didn’t answer if every movie needs to be character-driven.
Of course not, but it is important when the main plot isn’t compelling or interesting, especially since we know exactly how it’s going to turn out. We know they’ll get the plans, so it would seem logical to have it be character driven since the main plot is straightforward and already spoiled.
I think that almost every movie should have you caring about the characters one way or the other. Having boring characters is generally a sign of bad film-making. But not every movie needs to advance primarily by characters going through a phase of big changes, which is what I would understand by character-driven.
My phrasing was a bit off, but R1 didn’t seem to make much effort to have compelling characters. Most were without personality and the ones that were interesting got little focus.