Author Topic: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)  (Read 4745 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8008
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
« Reply #90 on: January 03, 2017, 03:44:50 PM »
I'm with Superdave on Die Hard.  The whole reason the movie works so well is that it gets us invested in the characters.  I think perhaps some people are confusing a fully fleshed out backstory with a good character and honestly the 2 are completely separate.  I mean, the original trilogy didn't really lay out a complicated backstory for anyone and in Episode IV, the main characters were just basically well explored architypes in a novel setting.  What made them memorablr was the charm they all had that showed us, not told us who the characters were.  In Rogue one, there was a lot of telling, but not much showing.  The most interesting character IMO was Galen because he really projected the internal conflicts he had going on. 

With Jyn though, despite having her daddy issues, we don't really get a good feel for her character arc at all.  What was her life like when she was capture by the empire, what caused her to care about the rebellion again and why, and how did her death fulfill anything in her life at all?  I don't really feel that any of those points were translated to the screen well at all, and everyone else had even less of an in depth arc.  Bodi, the pilot, had a lot of potential but the never really let us in his head.  Cassian had a glimmer of complexity but never got beyond 2 dimensional at all.  Chirrut and Baze had hints of an interesting relationship, but it was left shallow.  And literally everyone else on Rogue One was just added in at the last moment. 

To reiterate, I'm not hating on the movie at all as there was a lot I did like about it, but most of what I liked, I feel stemmed from being so invested in the universe already.  Turn this into a WWII movie and I don't think it'd be so great on its own two feet, despite some fantastic action and visuals.  That said, I think this is a fine first entry into stand-alone Star Wars movies, but I am really skeptical of what they've announced so far for the others.  Young Han especially does not fill me with hope.


Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Frequent Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
Re: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
« Reply #91 on: January 03, 2017, 04:42:15 PM »
Saw it again today for the third and final time in theaters.  It actually improves with repeat viewing. I was able to let go of some of my expectations and just enjoy the ride.  Even Saw was not as annoying this time around.  It's still no masterpiece, but I think it's a solid film that fits well into the canon. My final grade is a B+.

I also watched it in an older theater and in 2D, which I really think helps the CGI; 4K shows up every little imperfection, and the 3D version of Tarkin just felt off in a way that this one didn't.

I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8008
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
« Reply #92 on: January 03, 2017, 05:06:11 PM »
...  the 3D version of Tarkin just felt off in a way that this one didn't.

Interesting.  Didn't even consoder that impacting people's opinions on that.  I know I saw it in 2D and while at first it was a tad weird, I grew accustomed to it pretty quick and rated it as the best use of that CG face altering tech to date. 

Quick informal poll for everyone:  Generally speaking, was it a pass or fail on Tarkin's CGI resurrection?  How about the other character's?  What format did you see the movie in?

Offline amysrevenge

  • Baseball-Cap-Beard-Baby Guy
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4971
  • The Warhammeriest
Re: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
« Reply #93 on: January 03, 2017, 05:11:50 PM »
The first time he came on screen I found it really jarring and noticeable.  I assumed at the time that that was the last we'd see of him.  When he came back for other scenes, I didn't notice or think anything of it.  So it was just that first scene that didn't work for me (and I bet it would work better if I saw it again).

That was in the fanciest 3D-est screen I could get to on foot from my house (not IMAX).
Big Mike
Calgary AB Canada

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Frequent Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
Re: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
« Reply #94 on: January 03, 2017, 06:02:52 PM »
First Viewing: Sony 4K, RealD 3D, Dolby DTS sound.
Second Viewing: Sony 4K, 2D, Dolby DTS sound.
Third viewing: 2D, resolution and sound unknown.


I detest IMAX 3D.  It's dim, nauseating and incredibly unrealistic. Life doesn't pop out at me; neither should a 3D movie.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2017, 06:07:10 PM by The Latinist »
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline lubbarin

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
Re: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
« Reply #95 on: January 03, 2017, 10:12:31 PM »
Finally, at last, saw it today.

Thought it was pretty great.
My reaction to some of the quibbles:
I like that the characters were as vague as they were-- though vague may not even be the right word.
They were thin on exposition, but they communicated a lot of personality, and rode a lot of archtypical themes to feel complete enough. More, in fact, than I would expect from an equivalent WWII era movie.
--I mean, Kelly's Heroes needed Clint Eastwood, Telly Savalas, a hippie and freakin Don Rickles to pack that much into thinly fleshed out characters.

The planet hopping did seem excessive. Most of it was to service the plot, though. It would have been weak to have all of the important plot points revolve around the same planet.

But still..
(click to show/hide)


(click to show/hide)
Re:IMAX-- no gimmicks. In this case the 3D just added depth, which translated into what amounts to a richer picture once I stopped paying attention to it and got "in to" the movie.

Not sure why I'm using spoilers. Is there anyone left who intends to see this unspoiled who hasn't already? And what are you reading this thread for?


Anyway.. dug the atmosphere, and the world-building was innovative (meaning, pretty new to the extablished universe I've seen so far) yet still felt like the same universe.



A couple of quibbles of my own:
(click to show/hide)

Didn't really need the inspirational speeches. Totally superfluous in my opinion.


I am in favor of killing all whales on principle. Where is my avalanche of 'provocateur' money?

Offline lubbarin

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
Re: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
« Reply #96 on: January 03, 2017, 10:39:36 PM »
And now on to the scuttlebutt, to which in accordance with my deeply flawed character I give much more attention than I should.

(click to show/hide)
« Last Edit: January 03, 2017, 11:43:17 PM by lubbarin »
I am in favor of killing all whales on principle. Where is my avalanche of 'provocateur' money?

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Frequent Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
Re: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
« Reply #97 on: January 03, 2017, 11:52:49 PM »
But still..
(click to show/hide)

Umm...
(click to show/hide)

ETA: Thinking about this response, I realize that it may appear unnecessarily hostile.  That was not my intent or the emotion behind it; I was merely trying to convey my enthusiasm for this plot point, which I consider one of the most interesting in the film and I got a little carried away.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 01:40:37 AM by The Latinist »
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline ShadowSot

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
Re: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
« Reply #98 on: January 04, 2017, 01:56:10 AM »
The first time he came on screen I found it really jarring and noticeable.  I assumed at the time that that was the last we'd see of him.  When he came back for other scenes, I didn't notice or think anything of it.  So it was just that first scene that didn't work for me (and I bet it would work better if I saw it again).

That was in the fanciest 3D-est screen I could get to on foot from my house (not IMAX).
I knew he was dead, and about the CGI effects, otherwise I don't think I would have actually noticed.
 My dad didn't, neither did my mom.
 Saw it in 2d.
 I feel if they could tone down the detail a bit, I would not have noticed at all.
“I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb.”
 - Richard Feynman

Offline lubbarin

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
Re: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
« Reply #99 on: January 04, 2017, 08:20:19 AM »
But still..
(click to show/hide)

Umm...
(click to show/hide)

ETA: Thinking about this response, I realize that it may appear unnecessarily hostile.  That was not my intent or the emotion behind it; I was merely trying to convey my enthusiasm for this plot point, which I consider one of the most interesting in the film and I got a little carried away.
I dig.

The thought crossed my mind briefly, but every other throwback was so in your face I dismissed it.
I am in favor of killing all whales on principle. Where is my avalanche of 'provocateur' money?

Offline stonesean

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7406
  • Dumb sailor on the Sea of Awesome
Re: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
« Reply #100 on: January 04, 2017, 08:44:47 AM »
I think the lava planet was an overtly direct bit of fan service.

FYI that was not the same lava planet as we see in the Prequels.  Bast Castle was meant to be Darth Vader's "palace" from as way back as pre-production of the original Star Wars film.

There have been Ralph McQuarrie concept renderings of "Bast Castle" circulating for years.  If you've never looked at McQuarrie's concept art for the original Star Wars films, it's pretty great.

Yes, it is logical to assume those two places are one in the same, but technically they are not.  I think the Disney Star Wars universe is happy to pretend the prequels don't exist (Vaders lava palace is in a confusing location) or steal from them (Jimmy Smits as Bail Organa) whenever it suits them.
Well.  There it is.

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8008
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
« Reply #101 on: January 04, 2017, 09:02:11 AM »
I did find it odd, that with all of the gajillion planets they had us jumping between at the beginning, the lava planet was the only one left unnamed.  Makes me wonder if they didn't do it to specifically spark a geek war.

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Frequent Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
Re: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
« Reply #102 on: January 04, 2017, 09:32:20 AM »
The thought crossed my mind briefly, but every other throwback was so in your face I dismissed it.

Yeah, I don't know why that planet of all planets didn't have a caption—I guess to preserve the surprise of Vader in the tank?  But it's since been confirmed as Mustafar by LucasFilms.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline Nemmzy

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
« Reply #103 on: January 08, 2017, 10:00:09 PM »
But still..
(click to show/hide)

Umm...
(click to show/hide)

ETA: Thinking about this response, I realize that it may appear unnecessarily hostile.  That was not my intent or the emotion behind it; I was merely trying to convey my enthusiasm for this plot point, which I consider one of the most interesting in the film and I got a little carried away.

(click to show/hide)

I saw it last night in 2D and enjoyed it I would say it was a solid B. To the point I was mystified by the NY Times hate fest critic. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/movies/star-wars-rogue-one-review.html The film has flaws for sure Tarken,  too many Death Star movies at this point, a jumbled plot, too many locations to keep track of, secondary characters that are more interesting than the 2 primary, but over all it was fun.

« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 07:46:07 AM by Nemmzy »

Offline stonesean

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7406
  • Dumb sailor on the Sea of Awesome
Re: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
« Reply #104 on: January 11, 2017, 12:21:34 PM »
Personally I think by many measures, one can make a solid case that "Rogue One" is a much better film than "Force Awakens".

There is less of the Hollywood movie magic pixie dust sort of feel to Rogue One compared to FA, but Rogue One's the story doesn't rely on anywhere near as many outrageous coincidences to propel the plot.  Luke's lightsaber happened to be in the basement of a bartender we've never met or even heard of before?  Rey just happened to wander on board the  Falcon? And can fly it? And flies it at the EXACT moment Han and Chewie were nearby?

Also, the central plot of Force Awakens.  The "Resistance" is fighting a newly reconstituted Empire called the "First Order"

From the Washington Post:

Quote from: Washington Post
The problems began with the very crawl, where we learn that a “resistance” was fighting against the remnant of the Empire known as the First Order. But if the Republic has been reconstituted, then what is this “resistance” resisting, exactly? Why is the Republic not taking the fight to the Empire reborn? Why is there a reticence to take on the Hitlerian Hux (Domhnall Gleeson) or anger on his part of being misled by the Republic? Is General Leia acting as a (sorry) rogue when she squares off against the First Order?


None of these questions is ever really addressed in “The Force Awakens,” let alone answered. And that’s a shame, since it radically reduces the stakes and renders Hux’s destruction of the Republic government’s star system as little more than a meaningless plot point designed to keep the action moving.

Well.  There it is.

 

personate-rain