Books A/V STAR WARS: ROGUE #$^$%&ING ONE: A STAR WARS STORY

The idea that Jyn is a straight up hero is odd. The "i rebel" line always struck me as Mon Mothma questioning the tactics Jyn used, as she was one of Saw's Partisans and far more willing to go to extremes the Alliance wasnt.

In the cut we have, she's not a rebel at until *after* she sees her father's message. Up to that point, she's only grudgingly going along with the Alliance, and under duress. She doesnt believe in the cause and is concerned only with her own survival. She's more like ANH Han than OT Luke.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

But she still has a background within the Rebellion, the Partisan portion of it. She's not some podunk nobody grabbed off of the streets.

 

Even after she sees the message, she only cares about saving her father. Her turn to being a full believer Rebel happens.... some time off screen between her conversation with Cassian after her father's death, and her speech to the Council.

 

I'd suggest that she never becomes a "full believer Rebel" - what happens is that, the moment her father dies, she commits to the Death Star being destroyed - since she's known since his message, that everything he's done, collaborating with the Empire included - was to undermine the Death Star Project - and she swears to herself, to fulfill his mission.

 

I think it comes from Galen's dying words, but it's very late in the film.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

After making that post the other day I went back and watched the three trailers that were released for the film again. The first two trailers make it pretty clear that Saw is the current father figure to Jyn. In the teaser trailer is when Saw says to her 'What will you do when they catch you? What will you do when they break you? If you continue to fight what will you become?'

In trailer #2 Jyn says to Saw 'This is our chance to make a real difference'. Seemingly trying to get Saw's approval for the mission.

By the time of trailer #3 all interactions between Jyn and Saw are gone and the only thing we see of Saw in the trailer are of him walking on artificial legs and him saying that line 'Save the rebellion. Save the dream.' THe trailer opens with a flashback to Jyn as a little girl being told by Galen that 'whatever I do I do it to protect you'. The third trailer makes it very clear that Galen is Jyn's father figure. It shows that Jyn has been in prison so she hasn't been out fighting the Empire with the Partisans (at least not currently). Jyn says to Mon Mothma 'what is this'? Where as in trailer #2 she tells Mon 'Let's just get this over with shall we'. And in the first trailer she tells Mon 'This is a Rebellion isn't it? I Rebel'. Furthering the notion that Jyn is not in the current fight by the time of trailer #3 where she did seem to be in the current fight in trailer #1 and 2.

Jyn as an outsider who was brought in to situation by outside circumstances would have automatically made her a more relatable character to the audience than a character who had been fighting all this time on a side that the Alliance didn't approve of. Not only that but she lost her parents as a small kid. And the complete film doubles down on this by letting the audience know that she lost a parental figure not once but twice. I'm sure the original cut still had Jyn being taken away from Galen as a small child but I am sure the reshoots doubled down on this and made it clear that losing Galen was still really affecting her. Jyn had probably completely replaced Galen with Saw as her father figure by the time of 0BBY and she wasn't having the daddy issues like she was in the theatrical release.

It would be interesting to see though what kind of role Galen Erso had in the original cut. We know he was still in the movie as the actor was brought in at the same time everyone else was. But it does seem his role was expanded by the reshoots.

 

Hey, are we ever gonna get Rogue II? I'm serious.

I wanna see the many Bothans die.

 

At some point, they do have to tell us what Bothans actually are...

To answer more seriously, I think I've seen Leland Chee or Pablo Hidalgo at some point say that it's not as interesting a story because we know the information was intentionally leaked by the Empire, so maybe it can't carry a full film.

 

It doesn't sound like that arc was necessarily grafted on late, to me. More, it sounds like the story wasn't as strong without them dying.

 

Gilroy says in his talk that he was brought on because he doesn't care about Star Wars, and could make the cuts that had to be made. That's a good call, and I hope that future movies have someone in the same role to do just that.

 

Just noticed that the Visual Guide for Rogue One has what looks like a deleted scene on the page for Draven. It appears that there was a scene with him and Merrick arguing that was cut. Maybe that was were some of the inspiration for Poe and Holdo in TLJ came from.

 

Draven was such a jerk. I wish he had been in that hallway when Vader was slicing up the Rebels.

 

I wonder if, when we see him again, he'll be humbled at all.

 

He's been in a couple of Marvel Star Wars issues (#35 - voice only, #45 - full appearance).

 

Gilroy says a lot of self-congratulatory tough-guy-posing stuff. “Oh, this Star Wars film was a total disaster before I came in, but it was simple for me to fix it because I’m a screenwriting genius. Not that I care about Star Wars like some kind of nerd though, it’s not even interesting.”

Big words from the guy who brought you The Bourne Legacy. I’m not sure how seriously I take Gilroy’s self-promotion here.

 

Yeah, there's no way writers of fiction could possibly make a story interesting if it involves the heroes being set up.

I mean, I'd sure hate to see them try to make a film trilogy out of the Clone Wars when we know it was all a Sith setup, no way to get an interesting story out of that.

 

Yeah. Plus it could always be *nestled into* another plot, like it was in Shadows of the Empire.

 

The reason I love the "This is a rebellion, isn't it?" line is because it sounds like an intentionally dumb thing to say. She's being a snot. She's saying it to make herself seem impossible.

 

I'm sure they could make an interesting story. But if they feel there are better stories oro there to tell, then they should tell those instead. We've already seen the story of the death star ii plans being leaked in other media anyway, if tangentially. (Lost Stars comes to mind). And while it might be cool to see it from the Rebels perspective, the nature of the plans being stolen is a very different animal then what we got in rogue one. But youryo technically right, if they wanted to make a trilogy out of it, talented writers could find a way.

 

Rouge Two should be a grindhouse Bothan bloodbath. Rogue Three is snap doing bong hits in his X-Wing while making long range scans of Starkiller Base.

Anyway, speaking of Rogue One characters, I also agree Jyn's switch being flipped to idealist is a jarring, ditto for me with Cassian suddenly not wanting to kill Galen because I don't know. Also Saw's exit just seems really weird like they were plugging some plot holes from reshoots with his ADR lines. The thing is, this is a case of all the actors, Luna, Jones and Whitaker, being really great and making us believe the switches but it's definitely the actors overcoming the materiel.

 

I assumed her "I rebel" wasn't referring to actual revolution, but just bad behavior, and that she was responding to the Draven disapprovingly reading her list of crimes.

 

I've been assuming some of that was done with Saw's faction.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

He's also the guy who brought you Michael Clayton.

The contrast of having someone who worships at the altar of Star Wars and someone who couldn't give a crap about it is telling, but going by what Edwards was rabbiting on about behind the scenes it is no surprise that it would be a mess. The finished product is problematic from a storytelling perspective (inconsequential villain, massive tonal leap from end of Eadu to Jyn reading the Rebels the Gettysburg Address), but Gilroy's intentions (make a Dad Movie) are writ large in the final product. Edwards' intentions, of making a great character piece with a great emotional story are not (although some of the dramatic ironies are fun).

The miscasting of Jones still hurts the film though. Can't fix that.

 

Gee, why would the assassin with the heart of gold, who later makes a speech indicating regret for doing horrible things for a good cause, have second thoughts about killing the father of the girl he's come to respect and bond with? And that's not even taking into account that he sees Galen try to save his fellow scientists from being executed, lending credence to the idea that Galen isn't a Bad Guy.

Next thing you know a roguish smuggler who cares only for himself will risk his life for a kid he met a few days ago, or a Sith Lord will sacrifice himself to save the biological son he'd previously tried to kill.