Rogue One: A Star Wars Story **Warning: Spoilers in thread**

Scheiss dem Fenster wrote:

Jazzem wrote:Was really disappointed by this

Basically the same problem as the director's Godzilla film; solid action filmmaking wasted because I couldn't get invested in the characters at all. There's too many of them and none of them leave a lasting impression, save maybe the droid.

That's not to say it's without merit; the attention to detail for Ep4 era is astonishing, and is reassuring that any other films they do for that time period will feel authentic.

But yeah...just found it dull and unengaging for the most part. Goddammit

It's amazing how people can have such different experiences from the same film.


Dull and unengaging?

Honestly am actually mystified how you could find it that?

I hate all this 'too many characters and not enough character development' bollocks. It's the same tripe that was levelled at Mad max.

You know the story - you should know these characters well enough.

Like i said amazing how opinions can differ so wildly.

Ha, funnily enough Mad Max Fury Road is probably in my top 10 films of all time.

But yeah, just as with Gareth Edwards' previous films I didn't find Rogue One emotionally engaging at all, which is a problem with a movie that clearly wants you to be invested what with its heavy themes. He seems to struggle with building any sort of human connection in his films, despite his talents as a spectacle filmmaker.

Not sure why I should be familiar with the characters either, seeing as the core cast is all new and the film does little to attach you to them. A couple of them are cool on a fundamental level, but that was about it for me.

I get what you're saying but like in Mad Max - you get a snapshot of their motivations and backstory and then it's straight into the story of the film. It's very easy to extrapolate what the rest of their story is. We don't know them but we know what they are going to do and that they are going to die doing it and we also know so many of the characters around them.

I thought they were fleshed out enough that I wanted to know more but was happy enough and could connect with them and their motivations.
Just like in Mad Max.

I wasn't having a go. I think I'm just sorry when people haven't enjoyed it as much as me.

Saw this last night at the iMax, (first time at an iMax too) bloody loved it, utterly fantastic. Though like everyone has said the start is all over the place they really should have tightened that up, as after that it is excellent. CGI Tarkin was overused, they probably could have limited that (I thought it worked with Leia but again as it was so brief). Oh and as I feared with the last minute changes to the film composer, meant a near impossible job of matching John Williams, was not even acceptably close. Also who was the Red 5 pilot? I get they significance of why the Red 5 getting destroyed gives Luke that call sign, but it felt like that was a cameo

The issue I have not seen mentioned, is with the ending, when they capture the blockade runner at the start of episode IV the whole bluff Leia pulls doesn't quite work if they just escaped Vaders clutches, heck they even say they monitored them receiving a transmission, so it is not a perfect fit, like they should have done.

I feel bad as I have listed issues with it, but I loved it, so enough of that. I said from the second this got announced everyone would die, but even so I still kinda expected someone to survive. The feels when everyone died were there. Still sad about it now

Scheiss dem Fenster wrote:I get what you're saying but like in Mad Max - you get a snapshot of their motivations and backstory and then it's straight into the story of the film. It's very easy to extrapolate what the rest of their story is. We don't know them but we know what they are going to do and that they are going to die doing it and we also know so many of the characters around them.

I thought they were fleshed out enough that I wanted to know more but was happy enough and could connect with them and their motivations.
Just like in Mad Max.

I wasn't having a go. I think I'm just sorry when people haven't enjoyed it as much as me.

Sure thing, I hear ya Believe me, I've felt awful reading how much others have liked this, I was so gutted I didn't care for it. I adored Force Awakens and was so keen to see this, even if a bit cautiously given my complaints about the director's previous films.

I get what you mean with the Mad Max comparison, and it's tricky for me to pinpoint why it worked for me in that and not this...I'd have to see them back to back to figure out the difference. You certainly can get an audience invested without telling them everything about a character aye.

Star Wars films are traditionally about the characters. So A New Hope is Luke's story, The Force Awakens is Finn and Rey's story. Rogue One is about the Rebellion's story, how they find renewed hope and focus after occupying some dodgy territory (Saw's extremism, Cassian's nonchalance towards killing, the order to assassinate Galen). It's less about lending depth to individual characters and more about painting a picture of these disparate, flawed figures that form the broad strokes of the Rebellion before golden boy Luke comes along .

Some of Rogue One's characters reflect aspects of the Rebellion in a way. Jyn represents that renewed hope, she finds purpose when she finds hope and is reminded how much her father loved her. Cassian represents the old Rebellion. He did bad things when there didn't seem to much hope, but his outlook changes. Chirrut (Donnie Yen) represents the faith in the force, the hope that isn't based on a tangible element (the Death Star plans).

I think it's a strength of Rogue One that it isn't about one character more than it is an ensemble war movie about this grander galactic story.

Also: THAT strawberry floating VADER SCENE BAH GAWD

Skippy wrote:Star Wars films are traditionally about the characters. So A New Hope is Luke's story, The Force Awakens is Finn and Rey's story. Rogue One is about the Rebellion's story, how they find renewed hope and focus after occupying some dodgy territory (Saw's extremism, Cassian's nonchalance towards killing, the order to assassinate Galen). It's less about lending depth to individual characters and more about painting a picture of these disparate, flawed figures that form the broad strokes of the Rebellion before golden boy Luke comes along .

Some of Rogue One's characters reflect aspects of the Rebellion in a way. Jyn represents that renewed hope, she finds purpose when she finds hope and is reminded how much her father loved her. Cassian represents the old Rebellion. He did bad things when there didn't seem to much hope, but his outlook changes. Chirrut (Donnie Yen) represents the faith in the force, the hope that isn't based on a tangible element (the Death Star plans).

I think it's a strength of Rogue One that it isn't about one character more than it is an ensemble war movie about this grander galactic story.

Also: THAT strawberry floating VADER SCENE BAH GAWD

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Making it an ensemble was a good way to go, and I want these spin off movies to differentiate themselves from the main episodes in ways like that.

I think what would've helped me was getting a better sense of a growing bond between the characters, I don't think they play off each other in particularly interesting or relatable ways, and I didn't get a compelling sense of camaraderie from them like I have done in good war films.

Jazzem wrote:I think what would've helped me was getting a better sense of a growing bond between the characters, I don't think they play off each other in particularly interesting or relatable ways, and I didn't get a compelling sense of camaraderie from them like I have done in good war films.

That's a fair point, Chirrut, Baze and the Imperial pilot just kind of tagged along after Jedah. Didn't have many meaningful interactions with Jyn and Cassian really, that I can remember anyway. Didn't impact my enjoyment though.

Skippy wrote:Star Wars films are traditionally about the characters. So A New Hope is Luke's story, The Force Awakens is Finn and Rey's story. Rogue One is about the Rebellion's story, how they find renewed hope and focus after occupying some dodgy territory (Saw's extremism, Cassian's nonchalance towards killing, the order to assassinate Galen). It's less about lending depth to individual characters and more about painting a picture of these disparate, flawed figures that form the broad strokes of the Rebellion before golden boy Luke comes along .

Some of Rogue One's characters reflect aspects of the Rebellion in a way. Jyn represents that renewed hope, she finds purpose when she finds hope and is reminded how much her father loved her. Cassian represents the old Rebellion. He did bad things when there didn't seem to much hope, but his outlook changes. Chirrut (Donnie Yen) represents the faith in the force, the hope that isn't based on a tangible element (the Death Star plans).

I think it's a strength of Rogue One that it isn't about one character more than it is an ensemble war movie about this grander galactic story.

Also: THAT strawberry floating VADER SCENE BAH GAWD

Perfect summation.

Hexx wrote:I assumed it was Mustafa




Vadar made his home where he was 'born'

Yeah. And the dark side is very strong on that planet so it makes sense it being Vader's home as well.

All this just make me wish for a full on Vader film. There are stories of him single handly win a battle himself.

I liked all of The Rogue One group way more than any of the new characters they introduced in TFA.

Just a shame we won't be seeing any of them again.

Donnie Yen's character is a total badass.

Skippy wrote:Star Wars films are traditionally about the characters. So A New Hope is Luke's story, The Force Awakens is Finn and Rey's story. Rogue One is about the Rebellion's story, how they find renewed hope and focus after occupying some dodgy territory (Saw's extremism, Cassian's nonchalance towards killing, the order to assassinate Galen). It's less about lending depth to individual characters and more about painting a picture of these disparate, flawed figures that form the broad strokes of the Rebellion before golden boy Luke comes along .

Some of Rogue One's characters reflect aspects of the Rebellion in a way. Jyn represents that renewed hope, she finds purpose when she finds hope and is reminded how much her father loved her. Cassian represents the old Rebellion. He did bad things when there didn't seem to much hope, but his outlook changes. Chirrut (Donnie Yen) represents the faith in the force, the hope that isn't based on a tangible element (the Death Star plans).

I think it's a strength of Rogue One that it isn't about one character more than it is an ensemble war movie about this grander galactic story.

Also: THAT strawberry floating VADER SCENE BAH GAWD :datass: :datass: :datass:

I don't agree with that at all. From the very beginning its pretty clear this is the story of Jyn Erso and her father.

Also don't agree with it not being emotionally engaging, its got characters and relationships with emotional depth all the way through it. Stand outs being Jyn and Galen and Cassian Andor. You even see the vulnerability in the blind monk and his almost desperate need to believe in the Force. Its a film chock full of emotional depth (don't get me started on Fury Road by the way, if ever there was a film with paper thin characters, that's it).

Watched it earlier and will go into my thoughts a bit later but I was not prepared for it to be as good as it was. The feeling coming out of the cinema for this was what I expected to feel after The Force Awakens.

Strangely I correctly guessed Guy Henry from Holby City was playing Tarkin purely from the voice but apparently he wasn't even doing the voice. He was just the physical stand-in for the CGI.

1>3>4>2 wrote:

TV Dinner wrote:Strangely I correctly guessed Guy Henry from Holby City was playing Tarkin purely from the voice but apparently he wasn't even doing the voice. He was just the physical stand-in they did CGI on.

Yeah this is bothering me as well. I figured out out it was Hanson from Holby. I recognised the mannerisms and the voice. It doesn't make sense that he didn't voice him.

So the guy who did Tarkin's voice is the same as the voice actor in the Star Trek Rebels:





That sounds completely different to the Rogue One voice right? Compare that to Guy Henry speaking:

Watched it tonight. Really enjoyed it. A few of my thoughts.

The music was gooseberry fool.
After the prologue, it seemed a bit poor and disjointed and not Star Wars-y. Where has Jyn been etc. But it soon picked up. I dont want to say it was all then predictable, but as a viewer, I like the revelation as to how it mapped out in front of me.
I liked alot of the lore references. The odds, the bad feeling, you better watch yourself.
I felt the relationship between Cassian an Jyn was poorly handled. The bit where he chose not to snipe Galen should have had a bit more to it. And at the end, it looked a few times that they were going to kiss, but there was nothing before that really warranted that situation.
I thought Cushing CGI was done well. He supposed to be a baddy, and the CGI gave him a creepy edge.
Goose bumps at the moment the plans went to the Tantive IV, Darth Vader total bad ass, and Leia
But the CGI for Leia was gooseberry fool, and the music was gooseberry fool too.

And also, what was going on with the bit of cheap black plastic on Darth Vaders neck?

Advent7 wrote:Lucas would be getting crucified for cg- ing those characters in but it's OK now is someone else doing it?

That's a very simplistic view. Lucas CGId everything, and also the films were gooseberry fool.

I don't think many people object to occasional CGI.


My thoughts: loved it. It was great. I liked that the rebellion was quite dark. Certainly didn't shy away from the 'one man's freedom fighter...' point of view.

I have seen a few screen shots of Cushing and to be honest I think he looks fantastic. It is incredible what they can do with CGI now. I think the reason people are so down on it is because you know in advance it is CGI and subconsciously you are looking for the flaws. Also it being Star Wars with a history of OTT special effects from the prequels magnifies it. It is in no way as bad as the episode 1 Yoda puppet looked.

captain red dog wrote:I have seen a few screen shots of Cushing and to be honest I think he looks fantastic. It is incredible what they can do with CGI now. I think the reason people are so down on it is because you know in advance it is CGI and subconsciously you are looking for the flaws. Also it being Star Wars with a history of OTT special effects from the prequels magnifies it. It is in no way as bad as the episode 1 Yoda puppet looked.

My misses has never seen the original Star Wars and after Moff's first scene she leaned over and whispered if I thought there was something odd about his face. It's very impressive, but it just doesn't look "right". I can't even put my finger on why it doesn't look real, it just doesn't.

This is radio, not television wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I have seen a few screen shots of Cushing and to be honest I think he looks fantastic. It is incredible what they can do with CGI now. I think the reason people are so down on it is because you know in advance it is CGI and subconsciously you are looking for the flaws. Also it being Star Wars with a history of OTT special effects from the prequels magnifies it. It is in no way as bad as the episode 1 Yoda puppet looked.

My misses has never seen the original Star Wars and after Moff's first scene she leaned over and whispered if I thought there was something odd about his face. It's very impressive, but it just doesn't look "right". I can't even put my finger on why it doesn't look real, it just doesn't.

In static shots it looks great but when it moves it just not right, falls into the uncanny valley and gives you a slightly uneasy feeling.