Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

[Dave]

I'm one of those unobservant people who didn't notice any of the problems that apparently wrecked the lives of others.

There are probably support groups for those challenged by this cinematic experience.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

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.

I'm all for descriptive language. But not when it seems a woman has been described somewhat offensively, in a way I suspect a man wouldn't have been for the same reason. (Or, at least, I'd be offended if I'd been referred to as a sex doll whilst wearing a long white dress and showing no such intent.)

Anyhow, back to the thread. The CGI didn't bother me at all. I enjoyed the film for the escapism it was.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Just seen it. Quite enjoyable, but I felt there was too much cheese in places. The ending, however, was very nicely done.

 

[Vince W]

Luckily for me the first reveal of Tarkin was a pleasant surprise. I didn't notice the CGI much at first, but as you saw more of Tarkin you could see the CGI more clearly and it became less impressive. Leia's reveal, however, was no surprise and not as well done (or received by me at least). This was because she was too smooth and perfect looking. Perhaps not a sex doll, but certainly clearly artificial.

 

[Parson]

My grandmother would call this discussion "a tempest in a teapot." ---- Here's my take: "It is what it is. Enjoy it or not."

For me, I enjoyed it. If I see it again, and I might. I'll enjoy it a second time even knowing what "flaws" there are in the production.

 

[RX-79G]

I'm all for descriptive language. But not when it seems a woman has been described somewhat offensively, in a way I suspect a man wouldn't have been for the same reason.

Which woman? What's her name?

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 didn't refer to a female looking like a sex doll. I referred to a CGI animation that is supposed to look like a real human looking like a molded rubber doll with dead eyes and a frozen smile. There is no human being involved for you to be offended about. It sounds like you are offended out of some habit, rather than an actual offense directed at a person or people.

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.

Who said anything about the plot? Movies aren't just plot and dialogue. They are intensely visual, and you are dismissing out of hand the value in quality visuals. You might as well skip the theater and just read the script.

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.

Not really. While your are attempting to mischaracterize my statements as some sort of emotional reaction, I am making a very particular point: The visual quality of R1 is simply not as believable as SW. And if you have your trusty VHS copy of SW to review, you would see that to be true. As I already said, R1 is a decent film, but it is mired in sentimentalism, easter eggs and it pushes the technology too far - to its detriment. That some people aren't bothered by those things is perfectly fine, but stating that my criticisms of technical and character issues in the film are simply me being emotional is unfair. I didn't pay $11 just to have something to rip on, and I would expect this environment to be slightly more open to a discussion of both the positive and negatives of R1, rather than angry declarations that I'm just some "anti-fanboy". I actually have a BS in film and video production.

And 2001 opened the doors for non-B sci fi 8 years earlier.

 

[Phyrebrat]

It wasn't aimed at you; you have not been mischaracterised or misquoted, either. But, you do have a somewhat emotive and prickly way of communicating with me (cf "And 2001 [...]"). We're a good lot here, no one is pointing fingers or belittling anyone's point of view, just disagreeing. I know I personally haven't made any angry declarations that you're just some anti-fanboy.

You're right, it's fine for you to feel what you feel - as I said in my initial post:

I don't know; we all feel what we feel, so maybe these complaints are valid.

2001 is a supremely great film - another one on my favourites shelf - but it's not a pop-cutural icon the way Star Wars is, though.

Back to R1, and to clarify my thoughts on this: I only disagreed with you on the poor quality of choice and execution of Tarkin and Leia. This also puts me in a camp of disagreeing with other people in this thread who have the same opinion as you on it. Additonally, I even said the opening was unecessary in my opinion, so I'm not claiming the film is sacrosanct.

I get that you're invested and passonate about film, even before you mentioned your BS in film and video production.

pH

 

[RX-79G]

2001 is a supremely great film - another one on my favourites shelf - but it's not a pop-cutural icon the way Star Wars is, though.

2001, despite being slow and cerebral, was the highest grossing American film of 1968. It isn't an art film or cult classic. So while it isn't a "pop cultural icon" like Star Wars, but what other film is?

 

[Phyrebrat]

That's my point, really. For us who saw it (SW) back then, we'd never seen anything quite as accessible or exciting - I'm assuming you saw it back then, too - and it stuck with us. But in terms of horror films I would think The Exorcist, The Shining and Psycho may have initiated some kind of pop explosion.

pH

 

[RX-79G]

That's my point, really. For us who saw it (SW) back then, we'd never seen anything quite as accessible or exciting - I'm assuming you saw it back then, too - and it stuck with us. But in terms of horror films I would think The Exorcist, The Shining and Psycho may have initiated some kind of pop explosion.

pH

But as far as SF goes, SW wasn't the beginning of a new wave of highly impactful SF films. To this day no individual or trilogy of films has had the kind of effect on society as SW. They weren't just good films that got the ball rolling for other SF projects, they are the films that no one has been able to exceed since. The only things that are really comparable are the most iconic films of all time (Oz, Gone With the Wind, Cacablanca, etc.) or maybe the entirety of the James Bond or Star Trek series. Few SF projects have even attempted to try and have the same popular appeal, and absolutely nothing has exceeded them. And I'm not speaking as a fan, but as someone looking at the box office and general pervasive culture associated with it. It is still the high point of the genre by a large stretch.

 

[Phyrebrat]

I think we're agreeing on that though, aren't we? So, we are aware that SW has had such an impact as you say, and were around for it when it happened/started, and are therefore always looking for the same 'fix'.

It makes me think of the forecast greatness of Avatar (which I found unremarkable), and The Blair Witch Project (which I loved), but they didn't have the intended effect. Or at least become as iconic.

With R1, I was more affected when I left the cinema with its bleakness than I was by, say Revenge of the Sith. It also gave me a sense of tapping into that SW universe of my childhood that the prequels and TFA did not. To agree with you on the inclusion of Leia, I would probaby have felt that had CGI-Leia not been in R1. However, I suspect Tarkin's inclusion was really germane to that sensation and appreciation.

ETA: Jurassic Park?

pH

 

[TheDustyZebra]

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.

Sorry, I got sidetracked by small people wanting breakfast and then just came back and hit the post button when I had to go to work. I meant to add (not to belabor the point or the lack of point) that, as descriptive language goes, one could also say the CGI reminded one of a figure in a wax museum, or an action figure, or any number of other things that wouldn't be likely to offend.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

And I will add, for the record, that nobody gets to pick what is offensive to other people. It has been stated that the comparison was offensive to some, and that isn't up for discussion. Let's move on.

 

[AlexH]

I saw Rogue One yesterday and really enjoyed it - much better than the disappointing Force Awakens. If it matters, my Star Wars fandom doesn't go further than seeing everything from Episode 1 at the cinema just the once. I can't remember much about the original 3 films, but I'd like to watch A New Hope again (I think that's the right one) to see how it links with Rogue One.

 

[Boneman]

Excellent choice. Episode IV it is!

 

[J-Sun]

I blogged my reaction to finally seeing it. But the gist comes across right here.

Okay, had some time to think about it. Still love it. Which is the opposite of my experience with The Force Awakens - the more I thought about that one, the more problems I had with it, and the less I found myself liking it.

Might go spoiler tags from here on out:

Spoiler

Yes, Judderman, this is almost pure nostalgia. I can't deny that. All the things I loved about it were all the things I loved about the original trilogy. X-wings! Y-wings! AT-STs! AT-ATs! Space battles! Ground battles! Interesting aliens! Different worlds! But while TFA was just an unashamed rehash of A New Hope, I thought this was something different - this was its own film that happened to inhabit the same universe. Granted, it still tied heavily into ANH, but at least there wasn't a Skywalker in sight! (Alright, one. But only briefly.)

Okay, so some tropes got re-hashed. But I thought the father-daughter dynamic served the story well here. And it added in a nice layer to the existing mythos and neatly papered over something of a plot-hole. Why was there such an obvious, undiscovered flaw in this amazing technological marvel that is the Death Star? Now we know.

I also appreciated the tone of this film. It dealt a lot more with the gray areas that the previous films tended to shy away from. The Empire Strikes Back is often cited as the darkest of the films, but even so it still knows who is a good guy and who is a bad guy (Lando is about the only character who wavers between these extremes, and even then he's more roguish than evil). Rogue One, on the other hand, introduces us to Cassian by showing him coldly shoot an informant. This is a guy who's done - and is willing to do - some questionable things for his beliefs. Jyn is similarly conflicted. Unlike Luke and Rey, it takes some convincing for her to fully commit to the cause; for the first half of the film, she's pretty much just out for herself. I thought they both did wonderful jobs with their characters.

The supporting characters were all strong and showed a good amount of depth for such. K2 was the main scene stealer, but he only just beat out Chirrut. Krennic was an adequate foe - maybe not as menacing as I'd hoped he'd prove, but he still embodied that imperious Imperialness perfectly. Vader's involvement was measured and benefited from being so. Tarkin... well, more on Tarkin in a moment. I enjoyed the time spent with the Alliance council as well, and it was particularly nice seeing Bail Organa involved. Again, it gave a little more depth to things we already knew, without hitting us over the head in the way TFA was often guilty of.

I thought the overall structure and the last act in particular were really well-handled, given the constraints inherent in the story - we know this mission succeeds, so there's not a lot of tension in that regard, but they crafted a story that had a lot of tension despite this. They made us (me, at least) care about the characters, and then threw them into what seemed like an unwinnable situation, and had them win the day in a believably, if costly, fashion.

The action scenes were brilliant - so much better than TFA. Again and again, I find myself wishing that they'd given that movie to Gareth Edwards to shoot. For mine the final assault on Scarif rivals the Battle of Endor in scope and execution as the best of series to date. I loved how they cut in Red and Gold Leader footage from ANH - as I was watching I thought that they had just done an amazing job of re-casting, and didn't discover the truth until afterwards. I also thought it did a nice job of explaining why the Rebel defense of Yavin was a little thin on in ANH - most of the fleet had just recently been decimated.

My one complaint with the film has to be Tarkin. The CG was good, but not convincing enough for such a prominent role. I just found myself distracted by that every time he appeared. And I feel like it could so easily have been avoided. The first couple of times he appears, have it be via hologram. The next time, have him keep his back to Krennic and let us (and Krennic, as an insult) only see his face only as a reflection on the glass of the viewport. Then reveal him - still briefly - as he finally takes command of the Death Star. The brief shot of Leia worked so much better, because it was brief.

Overall, that's a minor quibble. I had a great time. Was it a necessary film? Probably not, but what film is? Will it get new fans in? Maybe not, but wasn't that the idea behind TFA? Did it break new ground? Yeah, a little. It was a Star Wars film that didn't shoehorn in Skywalkers, Solos, or unlikely relatives of Skywalkers and Solos. It was a Star Wars film that was about war and the dirty, disagreeable things that people rebelling against an oppressor might need to do. It was a Star Wars film that felt so familiar, but that did it's own thing.

Ddidn't mean to go on for so long. Obviously had a lot of thoughts about this!

Wow. Did we see the same film or what? My only even tiny disagreements are that, while Leia's brevity did work better than Tarquin's major role, I still didn't like her CGI, either and that, while I think TFA asks a lot of us and trades on our goodwill, I still like it. But, yeah, otherwise, right there with every word.

Also wasn't that impressed with Vader at first, but his final scene will go down as one of the great moments in film history imho.

The line, "try not to choke on your ambitions" or whatever it was. Really vader?

I didn't like Vader's voice, though. It seemed off.

Agree with all this, too, except that I'd forgotten the final Vader scene, already, until looking over the wikipedia article. But on thinking of it again, I agree that it was pretty amazing. And I have a further thought. I was saying it was impossible to square him doing what he was doing and then having stormtroopers do the boarding on Leia's ship in Star Wars and just walking in calmly after them. But there is an explanation. He was just really tired from the previous scene.

But, yeah, what with all the CGI mess around, I was pretty certain that was the real James Earl Jones but he really did not sound right - not as deep and, perhaps more importantly, not as deliberate, massive, in control. The pacing as well as the pitch was off. And that does seem like something they could have deployed special effects on in a way we might not have noticed. And, yes, that line was pretty terrible. Not an "apology accepted" or "technological terror" line.

These characters are receiving little in the way of buzz so I have no idea if they are supposed to be gay or not., but there is some talk that that is what is supposed to be.

I'm pretty sure this is another of those thoughts that only occurred while thinking about it afterwards. I didn't think anything of their relationship beyond great buddies but then realized that might have been what was intended. But I think it's reasonable to take it either way. They obviously "loved" each other one way or the other and there was no sex. You could as easily ask if Jyn and the captain guy were straight. They were obviously developing feelings for each other, but there was no sex either. The thing that matters to me is that they were excellent characters with excellent bonds. I am curious what people think in general because it does seem pretty subjective to me, though.

I frankly do not understand how this is possible.

The more of these kind of posts I read, the more confounded I am about the extreme variability of human perception.

Same here. I wonder what I did misinterpret but it was absolutely impossible, to me, to not see Tarkin and Leia as CGI, to be really puzzled but accept JEJ as really doing the voicing, and for the fighter pilots as being real clips. And to have Tarkin and Leia mess up the movie for me, JEJ be a mild issue, and for the fighter pilots to be one of the high points of the movie.

Avoid 1,2 and three, Dusty. For your own sanity.

Great advice. They have some neat visuals and maybe even an idea or two but they're terrible and, worse, will mess up your view of the originals. It's hard to wash out how wrong Skywalker/Vader and even Kenobi are and, as always, there is Jar-Jar. Just. Stay. Away. Please. What has been seen cannot be unseen.

 

[RX-79G]

I don't think the blind guy and buddy are actually gay. The criticism was in the level of gooey sentimentality that has taken over Star Wars films. The original two films had relatively none of this. Luke and Leia's reaction to loss in the first films was violence and action, not tears.

 

[J-Sun]

The dude with the machine gun wasn't crying, either. He was blasting away (much like Luke, when Vader cut down Ben, come to think of it, and Luke was definitely and obviously emotionally devastated - even more so when Vader revealed who he was). And if they were this film's gooey center, it was surrounded by one very thick hard shell. This was one dark, murky film. No Ewoks here.

 

[RX-79G]

The dude with the machine gun wasn't crying, either. He was blasting away (much like Luke, when Vader cut down Ben, come to think of it, and Luke was definitely and obviously emotionally devastated - even more so when Vader revealed who he was). And if they were this film's gooey center, it was surrounded by one very thick hard shell. This was one dark, murky film. No Ewoks here.

It wasn't the reaction to the death as much as the awe-filled reaction to Blind Master's suicidal walk through enemy fire, followed by his own suicidal behavior. "I just can't go on without you!" That was not how Ben died or how Luke reacted. It also isn't like Han's freezing with Leia and Chewie's reactions.

And it really isn't about the characters' viewpoint, but the way the films are shot and edited to instill feelings of loss in the audience that the original two films made absolutely no effort to do. It wasn't necessary to manipulate the audiences feelings that way in those films. They were more adult in their relation to suffering and motivation.

 

[J-Sun]

Force guy's action wasn't suicidal, it was sacrificial. He had an objective; he accomplished it; he died. It basically is how Ben died except Ben's objective was accomplished directly by his sacrifice rather than the accomplishment resulting in sacrifice. (And "the walk" was pretty awesome.) There was no way out for any of them. They were all going to die one way or the other. Machine gun dude didn't know how he was going to go but knew he was going one way or the other. He took many of them with him. I didn't get "I can't go on without you" so much as "there's nothing left to protect; he's dead, mission's as accomplished as it can be from here; what's next? Hide and preserve my life for a few more seconds or take some of the bastids out? I'm going to start shooting, thank you very much." But it's clear this is not going to go anywhere. I liked the flick; from the whole thread it's clear you dislike it to the point of seeming to have a grudge against it. De gustibus non est disputandum.