Rogue One Rogue One Reviews/Reactions thread

One thing I will say about Rogue One. It has the best visual effects of any movie I have ever seen.

It's the first SW film since the OT where I feel like it has by far the best visual effects of any film I've seen in years. (I'm not knocking TFA or the PT... they certainly have great effects).

That Scarig battle is just bananas. I've never seen anything like it (other than the ROTJ space battle)... everytime I watch it I notice more things going on in the background. The level of detail is just insane

 

FX for me is actually another aspect where it felt very much like the OT to me, not just in terms of the look but in the way it felt more like it was using mature tech. I know have clearly pushed things forward but in both cases there building on a base that existed for along time prior to this which tend to result in the overall effect being very credible.

 

Hi. There. I just rewatched Rogue One on DVD (already seen in theaters twice) and feeling it was much better than The Force Awakens or Prequel Trilogy , I tried to explain myself why and came up with a few reasons.

In Rogue One

-The content , the galactic civil war and its effects on people or characters were depicted in much more serious mature form. The good guys did not get everything good or rightous on their side and they do not always get moral high ground. Obviously Empire with its tyranny , dictatorship not to mention mass massacres were evil but Rebels also get pretty low from time to time to fight the war. (Cassian killing his informer , Sal Guerra's extreme methods to struggle against Empire , Rebel Alliance reluctence to steal plans from Scarif etc)

-Script editing , story progression and character development was handled in a much better relateble and believable style. In The Force Awakens main characters meet up first time and five minutes later under attack they suddenly became good friends and comrades flying space vessels they haven't seen before and trusting each other despite being complate strangers they were to each other. At the other hand in Rogue One main heroine Jyn was initially a survivor not caring freedom of galaxy etc (You do not see Imperial Banner if you do not look too high) she slowly changes her perspective after seeing message of her father. In same way Cassian Andor being cold professional operative hesistates to kill Galen then decides to help Jyn to steal plans of Death Star. (similar kind of plot character developments is also appearent in Episode IV A New Hope) Not original maybe but more relatable for audience. You see character development and their motivations develop step by step. Actors were better (I will take professionalism of Felicity Jones over Daisy Ridley anytime) but character material written was also better.

-From low level guerilla conflict in Jedha to final action sequence on Battle of Scarif , war and battle was handled as tough , brutal and decisive manner. When a character dies he/she dies. As a result Battle of Scarif and its outcome was tense and while not unpredicteble (we knew plans of death star would be sent to Rebels) , making audience wonder how Rogue One would accomplish their goal. At least for me tension was there. There were light moments and humour too especially from K2SO (preformed by Alan Tudyk) or Chirut but not childlike overwhelming comic relief attempts like Jar....(well you know who I will not mention his name)
It was much more like a gallows humour in face of overwhelming odds.

-Shoutouts to original trilogy from style and aestetics of production to fan favorite characters like Leia , Tarkin , Bail Organa , C3PO and R2D2 etc.

I only wish Jyn , Cassian or K2SO survived at least. If they would have made a Rogue Two sequel I would definetely watch it.

 

Going by these reasons alone, you must have thought it was better than the OT as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No I actually do not. I see Original Trilogy as it is. A product of its time and even A New Hope or The Empire Strikes Back did not opt easy ways for characters or grittiness of war. Rogue One was complimenting or complating Original Trilogy.

 

Yes I'd agree with you about character relationships merdiolu, Rogue One does feel much more inline with the OT there to me in that the strongest character relationships tends to be well developed over a period of time and often start with initial conflict.

Actually following the link from your other thread to the start of this one made for some interesting reading as well with reguards to Lucas and his reaction. I suspect that he appreciated that Rogue One did make a strong effort to recreate a lot of the style of the OT whilst bringing something new to the table. Visually whilst it keeps some to the original films more stately shooting style it does clearly have lighting and use of focus that mark it out as modern.

Really I think the biggest issue is that Edwards desire to make a war film works perfectly with SW because its basically replacing one kind of influence(Western/Samurai) with another. I actually think that shifting an existing more grounded style of film into a sci fi/fantasy setting is really a lot of the magic of the original and both the PT and indeed TFA don't have the same feeling to them because they lack this. In terms of the style for me as well I think your even talking a similar kind of era, Rogue One is IMHO most obviously drawing on classic WW2 action films like the Guns of Navarone which tended to have the same somewhat gritty but not overly political/moralising tone and a focus across a larger cast.

 

I enjoyed Rogue One, it had arguably the best space battle in the series. The characters however lacked the charm of the ot and ep7 characters imo.

 

Every time I see pictures of Krennic I mistake the actor for Ian McKellen.

 

The characters and acting in RO was the most realistic and nuanced of all the SW films, IMO. These feel like real people fighting a war. But since there are so many deeply-held expectations for what genre characters are supposed to be like (BIG emotions, OTT personalities and frequent one-liners and self-aware quips) this often gets characterized by genre fans (or critics who fit RO into that narrow box) as blandness or lack of charm. For the anthologies, us fans need to set our expectations aside, and evaluate these films as films, not "superhero/ space opera" films. Star Wars is going to expanding well beyond those limits. And thank the Maker for it. That's what will prevent staleness.

 

This was stated wonderfully. I also felt the characters and their motives were extremely well-written and relatable. I think it is why I felt such a connection to them, despite their story arcs being much shorter than other characters in Star Wars. Furthermore, when you feel that genuine emotional bond with them, the events that transpire at the end of Act III carries an absolute ton of resonance.

 

Leaving "a product of it's time" alone for the time being, since that doesn't seem to make a difference on the qualities we're discussing, I don't see how ANH & TESB are any grittier than the other saga movies. And it seems they never intended to represent the gritty realities of war anyway. Going by Lucas interviews, the series was intended to take the trappings of the mono myth and update them with the cinematic conventions of the genres that captured his imagination. He has been very open about the fact that it was meant to reaffirm some very basic societal values to audiences of all ages. That's why there's a campy vibe to the saga. Princess Leia gets her home planet blown up, Luke witnesses the torched remains of the people who raised him and a few minutes later, they're back to their perky selves. Even Kenobi's death only warrants a brief mulling moment before Luke springs right back into action and then bursts out in childlike glee when they escape. That's all fine, because the movie knows it's a fun fantasy.

Rogue One is also a fun fantasy, but it doesn't seem to want to capitalize on that. It was too generic to be a tragedy but too self-serious to be a fun fantasy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That's because Rogue One wasn't intended to be either a tragedy or a fun fantasy. It's a heroic war film (with a dash of spy drama), with self-sacrifice at its heart. And it's very good at being that kind of film.

 

Like The Seven Samurai, one of the movies that Rogue One is trying to emulate.

No, RO does not have identity crisis issues. It’s just that there aren’t many movies nowadays that share traits with fun fantasy movies and serious/tragedy movies without being neither. I thought RO was a refreshing movie experience.

 

Exactly. It avoided the standard blockbuster formula. And for that reason it has received both withering criticism and overwhelming praise. Which tells me Gareth Edwards did something right. Very right.

 

To each their own. I didn't find it to avoid the standard blockbuster formula at all. The main character starts off as very resistant to what she's being railroaded into doing, is then given the stakes, accepts her task, finds everyone else is doing it wrong, and then rallies people together with an emotional speech and only a rag tag group of misfits have the fortitude to stick with her, so they team up and break the rules. It's Ellen Ripley in the Star Wars universe. How has no one seen this story a billion times before? Had I felt it did avoid formula, I would have been much more intrigued by it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That's a conveniently (and ridiculously) broad formula you've laid out. Due to how broad it is, it ignores the wackiness of the first half (particularly the complicated nature of their mission to authenticate the Galen story through Saw), the fact that every single main character perishes, an unothodox villain dynamic (particularly the competition between Krennic and Tarkin, with Vade hovering over all) and an ending/ coda that defies convention (so much so that a sizeable number of fans felt it didn't belong at the end of the film). It also hews to a realistic style that most blockbusters don't, and avoids the self-aware quippiness of most such films. When you roll all of that into the equation, it was definitely not your typical blockbuster. And a risky move on LFL's part, IMO. Deserves all the credit it's getting.

 

FYI Ellen Ripley is often used as a prime example of not following the typical hollywood character formula... then again I don't think Jyn is that similar to Ripley (other than both being strong female characters who weren't treated as scenery or sexual objects).

Can you even name a recent movie that's anything like Rogue One? Maybe Serenity?

 

It isn't "conveniently" broad, I'm specifically talking about the story in broad terms. There 'a nothing convenient about my dissatisfaction with the movie. I really wanted to like it! The smaller, more intricate plot details are interesting, but for me they decorate (rather than add up to) a basic story that I feel like I've seen a lot. I think my main issue was that the story wasn't structured so that I cared all that much about what happened. Not so much because of a lack of character development, which others have complained about. Rather, it didn't seem to have a sense of a unified whole to it. The Fan Service scenes, the interesting individual character scenes (oh, here's a good guy who's not all that nice and even kills innocents, how novel), the "emotional" (formulaic , IMO) father/daughter aspect, and the basic mission didn't seem to gel smoothly into a single whole. It just felt like it was trying to please too many different types of audience members in different parts of the movie.

"Realistic" in the sense you seem to be using it does not make a movie better.

Maybe I don't watch enough blockbusters then, but I've definitely seen all these kinds of things in movies many times before.

I think a movie should be judged on it's own merits and not whether or not the studio took a risk in making it.

Haven't seen many movies recently, but Jack Reacher, Shooter, Guardians of the Galaxy and the Mission: Impossible series are a few that pop up into my head. In the 90's, Braveheart (in which they didn't even WIN, much less survive) and Dances with Wolves come to mind.

If you loved the movie, all the more power to you. I found it hard to enjoy and I'm simply explaining why. There's no objectively right or wrong answer. To each their own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote][/quote]

 

Guardians of the Galaxy should actually give you a pretty good idea of the standard style for modern blockbusters from Marvel, Trek, Fast & Furious, Mission Impossible etc over the last few years. In respect to those films I do think Rogue One clearly represents a departure in looking to take its setting more seriously and holding back from throwing action/humour at the audience very rapidly.

Again for me the obvious comparison is stuff like The Guns of Navarone and Where Eagles Dare, WW2 spy/action films that are relatively down to earth but not overtly political, do obviously look to entertain both with action and drama but don't spoon feed the audience. The latter especially seem to be what a lot of people have a problem with expecting the film to hammer home the drama of the characters and situations much more obviously than it actually does.

I tend to think a lot of audiences and critics don't actually realise how under the thrall of the modern blockbuster formula they actually are, its one thing to still enjoy older cinema you've watched many times before but its another with something new. Most of what you'll be exposed to these days is I think very much geared to first viewing and having to put in limited thought offering a broad relatively simple plot and drama presented in a very obvious fashion. Equally when it comes to expectations I'd say its not just the style of the films but the nature of the plot that deliberately offers few surprises. obviously you might get the odd twist but a twist in the story you expected to be told. Something like ESB released today would I have get a significant amount of negative reaction for not following that route. even from people who hold it up as great cinema.

 

I agree - solid flick but it lacked development of the main characters. Jyn was simply not that interesting to me and neither was Cassian. If anything, Krennic had the most interesting setup and depth. In fairness to the movie though, we know that they pretty much all die anyways so why bother over-developing them? The idea here was to simply tell the stpry of the acquisition of the Death Star plans so in that regard the film succeeded perfectly.

 

It's more tragic/poetic when you identify with the characters, or at least the main character.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The only way to have more character development without losing anything from the movie (which is as perfect as I could want), would be to have it be longer.

Star Wars movies have this fixed 2:15hs ~ 2:30hs length, which I understand is important for revenue and for modern audiences, BUT, they could be better movies if they add another 30 minutes, making them 3:00hs movies.

 

the movie is long enough , I just didn't find the characters compelling or memorable .

.

 

I think certain styles of character development work better with certain types of movie goers. I actually found the Rogue One characters to be some of the most realistic and relatable of any in the SW saga (I think they are easily the most realistic). However, the characterizations were more subtle and not as in your face compared to quite a few other modern blockbuster films (which is a bit more "old school" IMO when it comes to action/adventure films). They also didn't spend time on characterization that didn't relate to the story.

Personally I would have found more "character development" to be useless and boring. I think everyone's motivations were very clear and their behavior made sense and was very in character throughout the film. I suppose people prioritize different things... for me it's very important that characters behave in believable ways and it doesn't feel like they are doing things because the plot says so. That's what makes a character "feel real" to me. I honestly don't really care to know their whole backstory as it actually makes them feel more like someone I might know in real life and my imagination can fill in the details.

I personally kind of think that the actual issue is that people just didn't like or relate to some of the characters... which really is very different from characters not being developed enough. Like I've seen countless people say how much they liked K2SO and Chirrut and felt bad when they died.... but both characters had much less development than Jyn and Cassian. I think some people just relate to more cheerful/larger than life type personalities versus more reserved/cynical types. Which is fine, everyone likes different things

 

There are only 3 possible options for you to get what you want:

1) Change the movie story to focus on character development instead of the actual story they wanted to tell (rogue group steals DS plans)
2) Add more time to develop the character without losing any other part of the movie
3) Cut away parts of the movie to tell us how Jyn is afraid of spiders and how Cassian had no friends in high school