Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
- Thread starter Gonk the Insane
- Start date
Rogue One takes place shortly before A New Hope so having Grand Moff Tarkin makes prefect sense given the fact that he was one the main villains in the story. Im glad they didn't recast him because in this case, I think that wouldn't worked out too well. The CGi worked nicely here. As for notion of Having deceased actor showing up in films via , Frankly I don't see problem, especially if the actors family and estate grants permission to use their image. In the case of Peter Cushing permission was given by his estate.
Tarkin's mouth moves like Golum. Leia's face barely moves at all. They don't look or move like people. They look better than Polar Express, but they don't look human.
I can't find where anyone used the term "fanboy service" in this thread, but you seem to be very critical of criticism. As someone who is critical of the newer SW films, allow me to just point out that this isn't the newest episode of Babylon 5. R1 is the $200 million prequel to a movie that set the standard 40 years ago - and it isn't technically as polished as Star Wars, a film that cost $13 million at the time or $52 million in 2017 dollars.
Star Wars was not perfect in its FX - it was nearly perfect. The only obvious FX "problem" was some blurring under Luke's speeder. Empire continued this, but had little problems with stop motion animation in Hoth scenes that they kept really minimal by using snowstorm blurring and slow moving AT-ATs. As kids, we were aware of these things, but they didn't hit you over the head. The magic marker around the Emperor was also duly noted in Jedi.
The reason these films looked as good as they did was due to a slavish devotion to realism. It's the reason Chewie's fur is from a yak and every sound effect is from the real world, rather than a synthesizer. When some effect didn't work, like the snow monster in Empire, they minimized it cut it. This policy was thrown out entirely for episodes 1-3.
In the opinion of this fanboy, R1 is too heavily invested in the hundreds of "easter eggs" (like Leia) inserted to please long time fans, and not invested enough in making a film that lived up to the level of craftsmanship that was the reason we were so awestruck in 1977. I guess it's a problem that comes from the comic book world with "origin" issues; this compulsive need to explain or show everything you can in a prequel - like how in The Last Crusade they felt they had to show the origin of the whip, the hat, snake fear, the jacket and the chin scar all in one scene. It is, and was, ridiculous.
They are, and the better the are crafted, the more immersed we are in that escapism. There is a reason that new Star Wars and Alien movies are being made, and not new installments of Logan's Run, Rollerball and the Black Hole. It's because the escapism offered by the Black Hole sucked. So you'll have to pardon us old fans who long for a feast of that old escapism rather than a fleeting taste.
R1 isn't a bad movie, but it is hobbled by its attempt to be both a stand alone work of art and a nostalgia piece - especially when the technology is not compatible with the demands being made.
They could have done a couple of holograms of Tarkin and a second of Leia from behind to accomplish what they needed to do. But they pushed it, marring the film for many of us and limiting our cinematic escape. (I actually groaned out loud when Leia turned around, it was so obviously and immediately off-putting. And I didn't know it was coming.)
There will always be people that don't care if a Dune book has Brian Herbert's name on it or if the newest movie sequel just seems phoned in, but some of us recognize Star Wars and Empire as particular achievements in the history of filmmaking, and would rather just have those films exist on their own than a host of films that don't make the same kind of effort.
Last edited:
The TV spots on YouTube look great, and certainly ramp up expectations - which can be a little dangerous.
I think the film more then lived up expectations. The Star Wars Franchise is in excellent hands.
Last edited:
Okay, well just for the record, then, I find it pretty offensive that you'd refer to a female as looking like a sex doll just because her face barely moves. That sounds more like someone with too much botox, frankly.
I'd say they were more like actors wearing masks - something with a long tradition in theatre - but I'm sure that they will have this technique perfected very soon (and as someone already pointed out, go back and release a new version of this film.)
The point about new Errol Flynn films is a valid one. Hollywood loves sequels. They hate paying actors money. You could make new 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' films with Harrison Ford forever, and pay unknown actors to pretend to be him. I can't find many positives in that happening.
The point about new Errol Flynn films is a valid one. Hollywood loves sequels. They hate paying actors money. You could make new 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' films with Harrison Ford forever, and pay unknown actors to pretend to be him. I can't find many positives in that happening.
Come on, Andrew, you can't really be serious about this? If you are, you simply must tell me where you get your sex dolls from!
Until then, we'll have to agree to disagree about the FX. So what if Chewie had yak's hair? It's still just a big bloke in a hairy suit.
Nothing FX-wise in R1 was detrimental to the plot, and it's not like Leia took up much screen-time. What was it, three seconds?
To take the point about easter eggs, lastly, I think there's nothing wrong with sending special messages within the medium.
Last edited:
The emerging legal angles will be interesting. Actors currently either sign away or retain their image rights in contracts, and any posthumous use of image would have to be settled with the actor's estate, as was the case with Peter Cushing. It's also worth noting that in most western countries, image rights are much like copyright within books; 70 years after the person's death their image becomes part of the public domain. Errol Flynn himself died in 1959, so we can expect new adventures of Robin Hood starring our Errol from 2029...
Not a good thing. I can see actors guilds / unions being up in arms about this. It would be a case of an ancient human craft / art being marginalised, endangered, or lost through technology. I remain optimistic that won't happen, and public appetite for real acting will remain.
Apologies for double post.
There are few things that are able to stand in the way of technology . CGI and computer technology is getting better with each passing passing year so, it's possible that even actors might be rendered obsolete. Why pay for an actor when you can create one the keyboard ?
Last edited:
I guess we'll still have the theatre...
Sorry to be gloom and doom on this.
If the actors family and estate grants permission to use the actors image, how do you prevent that from happening? What about actors whose images falls into the sphere of public domain ?
Last edited:
Culhwch
Lost Boy
I doubt we'll see new Errol Flynn movies anytime soon. The vast majority of today's movie going public wouldn't be able to pick him from a line-up, if they even knew who he was in the first place.
I can't see them using this technology much beyond what the last two years have given us - ageing and de-ageing actors like we saw in Ant Man and Civil War, and resurrecting dead actors for pivotal, nostalgic roles, like in Rogue One. The Indiana Jones thing? Well, maybe, but it would surprise me to be honest.
I can't see them using this technology much beyond what the last two years have given us - ageing and de-ageing actors like we saw in Ant Man and Civil War, and resurrecting dead actors for pivotal, nostalgic roles, like in Rogue One. The Indiana Jones thing? Well, maybe, but it would surprise me to be honest.
Must admit, I loved Rogue One. So much so, I've seen it twice now. That's almost unheard of for me, to see a film more than once at the cinema. Maybe three films have received that dubious privilege of my approval. As to the CGI, they didn't quite get the eyes right. That was my take on it. Not a deal-breaker. I was just stoked to see Tarkin in the film, as it showed a backstory in a couple of scenes: he was the archetypal bureaucratic officer/team member advancing on the innovations of others in his team. That bolstered his role in the original Star Wars.
As for Leia, princess and future general, her presence (apart from making the screen oddly watery for a second) ensured that the story had completed the circle to the beginning of Episode IV. So, in terms of storytelling, her inclusion was pretty much required, rather than being an Easter Egg - although what is wrong with Easter Eggs: who would want to squash a little innocent joy in the hearts of others?
In as much as Leia's face was a touch inanimate for, as Jo states, all of three seconds, fair enough. But sex doll is not where my mind goes to. It was just a little imperfection.
As for Leia, princess and future general, her presence (apart from making the screen oddly watery for a second) ensured that the story had completed the circle to the beginning of Episode IV. So, in terms of storytelling, her inclusion was pretty much required, rather than being an Easter Egg - although what is wrong with Easter Eggs: who would want to squash a little innocent joy in the hearts of others?
In as much as Leia's face was a touch inanimate for, as Jo states, all of three seconds, fair enough. But sex doll is not where my mind goes to. It was just a little imperfection.
I have seen it three times so far, and it's not even my favourite SW movie, Aber.
I should hope we (as writers, at least) would all be "critical of ciritcism" than to accept something as factual or empirical when it comes to the mercurial qualities of taste and aesthetic. So yes, I am critical of criticism. If you instead meant to say I 'seem' like I can't take criticism, that would be an incorrect assumption.
As for the reply to my post, all my points still stand, and I don't agree with your (RX) assessment of the effects. Furthermore the impact of economics is immaterial to my enjoyment of the art form that I identify Star Wars as. Indeed, it's unlikely we'll agree on many taste-based opinions in light of your comments on The Black Hole, which is one of the best chldren's SF pictures in my opinion. It has ropey special effects and dialogue so awkward GL himself could have written it, but for Disney to put out a film so nihilistic and for such an astoundingly dark ending, it deserves a special place in my movie collection. If Shakespeare had written The Tempest in 2017, I can imagine it following a similar arc. The thing is, I am a fan of horror, so the Gothic horror of The Black Hole really appeals to my sensibilities (and on that note, I wonder if Event Horizon would have been penned if there were no The Black Hole), and seeing a visual representation of Hell, or at least damnation, at the end of a kid's SF film is a massively brave and impressive feat.
Coming back to the fanboy service argument, I think that's hardwired into our spirits if we were here when SW first came out in 78. As adults our response to films is different to our response as children. I think a lot of complainants want the new movies to make them feel the same way they did when they first saw it. That's not going to happen, is it. Especially bearing in mind the cultural phenomena that SW introduced, and the doors it opened for non B-movie SF.
pH
I should hope we (as writers, at least) would all be "critical of ciritcism" than to accept something as factual or empirical when it comes to the mercurial qualities of taste and aesthetic. So yes, I am critical of criticism. If you instead meant to say I 'seem' like I can't take criticism, that would be an incorrect assumption.
As for the reply to my post, all my points still stand, and I don't agree with your (RX) assessment of the effects. Furthermore the impact of economics is immaterial to my enjoyment of the art form that I identify Star Wars as. Indeed, it's unlikely we'll agree on many taste-based opinions in light of your comments on The Black Hole, which is one of the best chldren's SF pictures in my opinion. It has ropey special effects and dialogue so awkward GL himself could have written it, but for Disney to put out a film so nihilistic and for such an astoundingly dark ending, it deserves a special place in my movie collection. If Shakespeare had written The Tempest in 2017, I can imagine it following a similar arc. The thing is, I am a fan of horror, so the Gothic horror of The Black Hole really appeals to my sensibilities (and on that note, I wonder if Event Horizon would have been penned if there were no The Black Hole), and seeing a visual representation of Hell, or at least damnation, at the end of a kid's SF film is a massively brave and impressive feat.
Coming back to the fanboy service argument, I think that's hardwired into our spirits if we were here when SW first came out in 78. As adults our response to films is different to our response as children. I think a lot of complainants want the new movies to make them feel the same way they did when they first saw it. That's not going to happen, is it. Especially bearing in mind the cultural phenomena that SW introduced, and the doors it opened for non B-movie SF.
pH
I'm one of those unobservant people who didn't notice any of the problems that apparently wrecked the lives of others. I knew there would be a CGI of Leia, but I didn't know that's what they did with Tarkin. I actually thought they had done it with the orange-suit rebel pilots whom I recognized from the 70s, and only found out later that it was actual "found" footage. So I suppose, overall, I was quite impressed with the CGI, because I couldn't tell which was which and none of it bothered me. And I've been gaming for quite a lot of years, too.
As for the dolls of ill repute, it's possible one could have said the CGI looked plastic, but then, we are (most of us) in the business of descriptive language around here.
As for the dolls of ill repute, it's possible one could have said the CGI looked plastic, but then, we are (most of us) in the business of descriptive language around here.
Similar threads
-
The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon: The Book of Carol: 02:02: Moulin Rogue.- Started by nixie
- Replies: 0
-
Space News: Rogue star hit solar system, life on the Moon?- Started by Brian G Turner
- Replies: 4
-
Star Wars: Rogue One DVD/Blu Ray release date
- Started by Brian G Turner
- Replies: 4
-
-
