Rogue One The Official "List Your Complaints about Rogue One" Discussion Thread

Well, yes, it's supposed to be that, but faith itself can be an ambiguous concept. As Han would say: "That's not how the Force works". It's unknown at what extent Chirrut can tap into the Force, but being able to shoot down a TIE (and conveniently destroying a tubolaser turret) and becoming "invisible" to enemy fire feels more like into "Nuke the Fridge" territory. There's no precedent in canon that the Force can play for or against someone by only having faith in it. Although the director and writers wanted to avoid having any Jedi, Chirrut practically worked as such with his uncanny ability to summon a Deus Ex Machina whenever the plot needed it. That for me is a lazily written character. Not even the Jedi characters from the other movies were written in such an exaggerated way.

 

The plot didn't need any of those moments. The turret could have been destroyed by an X-Wing or Y-Wing, and the master switch could have been pulled without such a near-miracle. Instead they went with visually and emotionally memorable moments. For shame!

And you talk about past canon as if there is a lot of it. There isn't. Rogue One is creating new canon, and that's a good thing.

And exaggerated? How is shooting down a TIE and walking through a hail of blaster bolts more exaggerated than sensing death across light years of space, or lifting huge ships out of water?

 

The group was cornered and no one could go to pull the switch. But then, Chirrut volunteered and magically all blaster fire missed him even though he was an easy slow-moving target. Deus Ex Machina at its most blatant. Not even true Jedi had that amount of plot armor. And how? By only repeating over and over "I'm one with the Force. The Force is with me". Oh, please...
Regarding the TIE and the tubolaser, well, maybe it wasn't an important plot point, but from someone who ISN'T A JEDI it makes no sense. Are we to believe that someone who isn't (apparently) Force sensitive can tap into the Force more effectively than a Jedi? A blind human character calculated the speed and distance of the TIE and predicted it was going to crash exactly on the enemy turret. That ain't an emotionally memorable moment. It was more like a Nuke the Fridge moment. The true emotion of that scene was with Jyn and her father, or Cassian deciding whether to kill or not to kill Galen.

At least there's an explanation for sensing death across light years of space and lifting huge ships out of the water, because such actions were performed by true Force users, and more importantly, better written characters. All of that made sense because they were given a proper context (something that Chirrut lacked).

I'm not against creating new canon as long as it makes sense within its context. You can create the most the most bizarre and fanciful characters (e.g. the Son and the Daughter) but if you give them a proper context and development, they'll work. We have a cyborg that can fight the Jedi using lightsabers, the Bendu, the aforementioned Son and Daughter and all that weird stuff from The Clone Wars and Rebels. But in Chirrut's case, it feels more like fan-fiction material the deliberately ambiguous (and rather lazy) way he was written. Is he Force-sensitive? Is he not? His faith in the Force helped him? The Force can help somebody as if it was some kind of deity? Well, the answer to all that is: it depends on what the plot needs (regardless if it is a big or small plot point).

 

You don't know what a deus ex machina is, nevermind if this one is "blatant." A deus ex machina is a moment when a completely unexpected event occurs, from an unexpected actor outside the main plot, which saves the day. A very important criteria for it is that the agent that "saves the day" is not part of the central plot of the story, and therefore represents a considerable "surprise" for the reader or viewer. It is also often an agent that single-handedly changes the circumstances. Chirrut in no way represents that. He is a central character in the plot, his unusual abilities had already been established, he was a main participant in the Scarif ground battle, including the effort to pull the master switch, and he did not act alone (his action is only useful because of the actions of Bodhi Rook, Jyn Erso and Cassian Andor) Therefore, Chirrut's action is simply not a deus ex machina by any stretch of the definition. Not even close.

A deus ex machina would have been a Jedi, arriving on a starship out of nowhere, pulling the switch (or destroying all the Death Troopers and allowing the team to pull the switch). The equivalent of the eagles from Lord of the Rings, for example.

You can object to the minor miracle that occurred in that scene. But you simply can't call it a deus ex machina.

 

In this case, the Deus Ex Machina is the Force itself that acts very conveniently whenever Chirrut is there. No one was expecting the Force would truly protect him reaching the switch. The unexpected actor was the Force (the eagles of that scene). That wouldn't be the case if Chirrut was a Jedi and mind tricked the troopers himself as we would be aware of his control over the Force, but it was made clear: he's no Jedi.
His unusual abilities were never established as you say. All we saw was a couple of random unexplainable moments: Chirrut being able to see Jyn's kyber crystal (how?) and Chirrut being able to shoot down a TIE (again, how? And the turret too?). Defeating a group of Stormtroopers doesn't establish how he could be miraculously protected by the Force at a crucial moment of the battle. What happened at Scarif wasn't a minor miracle. Not by any stretch. It was a Deus Ex Machina moment through and through that helped on the mission.

 

Digging your heels in is not always a great look. You know that what you've said above is a stretch beyond a stretch. You misused the term, and that's that. There's no shame in it, either.

The truth is that you simply don't like the scene. But it's not a deus ex machina. Chirrut showed extraordinary abilities throughout the film, as well as a deep faith in the Force. That faith and those abilities culminated in the master switch moment. There was lots of setup. It wasn't a deus ex machina.

Your argument would only hold if the force intervened independently of Chirrut. If the force pulled the switch.

 

Continuing a discussion with Gigoran Monk from a different thread, about the flaws in Rogue One:

No, I am not. Because the character work in Rogue One is not actually "subtle" or "nuanced" and what I'm complaining about is not the "lack of that Star Wars spark". The problem that I am complaining about is that the character work is just weak - in fact it's arguably the weakest in *any* of the Star Wars movies to date. (Yes, even including the prequels.)

The problem in a nutshell is that the protagonists are not so much a team of characters as they are sketches of characters - with suggestions of motivation and development unaccompanied by anything that the film itself ever manages to show or convincingly communicate about them.

Part of this problem is simply due to the bowdlerized narrative pacing (the entire sequence on Eadu for example, is a millstone around the neck of the film) but it also stems from the brutal fact that a large chunk of the main cast is glaringly redundant to the story that's being told. You could cut Chirrut Îmwe, Baze Malbus, and Bodhi Rook out of the plot altogether, and it wouldn't have a negative impact - indeed it would free up a lot of additional running time to make something better out of the dog's breakfast that is the characterization of Jyn and Cassian, the ostensible heroes.

 

More like you like the character so much that you leave no room for criticism. Having a deep faith in the Force doesn't mean he should pull a Ned Flanders whenever is needed the most. That's lazy storytelling. He's like the only one character in all the SW lore that has achieved that kind of feat and he's not even a Force user. Lots of set up? Where? That's the problem with Chirrut. There's literally nothing else that explains what he did. No backstory or at least some expository dialogue. The faith explanation is just vague and weak. It doesn't explain how a blind man can "see" someone is carrying a small kyber crystal or how he was able to shoot down a TIE and making it crash precisely where it was needed the most. I'm not misusing the term when it applies perfectly to what happened. Just rethink the scene: the Death Troopers are effectively killing the rebel troopers one by one. There's no stopping them. Then Chirrut appears and then what? Did he become invisible to them? Or did they lost control over their aim and started shooting in all directions? I'm sorry, but that's poor writting. How do you explain that moment from the Death Troopers' point of view? Am I to believe that because of his faith, the Force decided to help him by mind-tricking the Death Troopers while he reaches the switch? Well, surely something like that must have happened but it doesn't mean we shouldn't call it the way it really is: a deus ex machina. And you're saying that what I've said is a stretch beyond a stretch?

 

This. +1
Chirrut and Baze's only objective to the plot was to provide some action. And Bodhi's purpose was taking the characters from point A to point B (a plot device character). But regarding the main plot, they didn't bring anything too important (other than the master switch subplot, which I have the feeling it was part of the reshoots) as the story was building upon Jyn and Cassian's actions. They were always meant to be the main characters before Chirrut, Baze and Bodhi were added. They both started and finished the mission together, with barely any interaction with any of those three characters.
Jyn changed her mind about the rebellion because of her argument with Cassian and her father's death. And Cassian changed his mind about not taking part of the theft of the Death Star plans because of Jyn's speech to the Alliance high command. But there wasn't a single moment in which Chirrut, Baze and Bodhi were relevant to them in a more personal way. And that's my main issue. Instead of splitting the development and spotlight with unnecessary characters, the focus should have been always with Jyn and Cassian so that they could have had a better development.

 

Genre blockbusters have for so long beat character development 101 cliches over the heads of audiences that an ossification of what a genre film can be has set in. When you place Rogue One next to classic ensemble cinema, whether it's Seven Samurai or the Dirty Dozen, its merits, both as a "mission" film and as a character sketch, become obvious. These films do not cordon off "character scenes" from "action scenes" as many blockbusters do. The action scenes are often full of characterization, and that's what Really One critics miss.

What you call mere "suggestions" of character are not only perfectly clear, but naturalistic and well-distributed throughout the film.

Take Jyn, for example. The poster above suggests that she changed her mind about the rebellion because of her father's death and her argument with Cassian. Really? That's all you got? Here is the fuller progression which occurs throughout.

1. Jyn is cynical towards the Rebellion at the start because it has only brought her pain and abandonment
2. Jyn is freed from bondage by the Rebellion (first obvious step towards a changed perception of the Rebellion/ a cause above self)
3. Cassian saves Jyn during the Jedha firefight
4. Jyn realizes, after watching her father's message, that her father is not an Imperial, but rather someone who has sacrificed his life to undermine it. This greatly leavens her cynicism and puts her on a clear path to heroism.
5. The destruction of a heavily-populated ancient city by the Empire right before her eyes (who wouldn't be compelled to join a rebellion in the wake of that)? Leaving the witnessing of a genocide out of Jyn's characterization is a primary reason why I believe many genre film fans look at this film with a jaundiced eye. Because in many genre blockbusters, CGI human disasters happen all the time and nobody really cares anymore. But if you view Rogue One next to historical dramas, for example, this event is clearly a major turning point for her character.
6. The death of her old guardian and rebel, Saw, at the hands of the Empire
7. Her father's plea on his death bed (albeit a metal one in flames) that Jyn fulfill his mission to destroy the Death Star
8. (Setback) Jyn's anger at the Rebel role in killing her father
9. Jyn's anger precipitates an impassioned defense from Cassian, which is arguably a similar rationale to her father's.
10. Jyn therefore makes a last ditch attempt to enlist the Rebellion in a fight against the Death Star.
11. Their inaction leads to a reconciliation between her and Cassian, and they embark on the mission despite the Rebellion (which also shows that Jyn's characterization is not really about her changing attitude toward the Rebellion, but her changing attitude about fighting for a selfless cause.

And that characterization is beautifully tied up with a progression in the other direction by Cassian. Jyn goes from purposeless to purposeful, while Cassian goes from pure purpose to a recognition that sometimes too much purpose can swallow up innocent lives (like Galen's). So Jyn learns the value of fighting for a greater good, while Cassian learns the value of not losing sight of individual people in his zeal for the greater good. And that profession occurs due to their relationship, and what they experience together.

And the rest of the crew, though they have mini-arcs, are ensemble color for the film. They make the proceedings more interesting, and are not supposed to have complete personal transformations. Which points to the other problem in recent expectations of genre cinema: that each character in an ensemble must have their own robust arcs/ personal transformations. That's nonsense which creates a cluttered narrative. Classic ensemble films usually follow one or two characters and let the other characters remain static so as to place the protagonists in relief. Rogue One played this beautifully, thus avoiding the jumbled narrative of bloated ensemble films such as the Avengers.

I believe it mostly comes down to you simply not liking the main characters very much. That's fair. But in a series where characterization has always been a sketch, it's very difficult to argue that it's somehow weaker in Rogue One. I mean, Luke finds out his father is Darth Vader, and soon after, he's trying to save his soul. Han Solo is collecting his hard-earned money, and soon after, he's risking his life to save the day with no promise of financial reward. This is not Shakespeare. These are mythic stories. And in that context, Rogue One's two main characters are arguably the most nuanced and least archetypal of the series. They behave like real people, through and through. Even if there's not a flashing neon sign above each of their "character moments." Those moments are woven into the narrative action, rather than stamped onto it.

 

I strongly disagree with this, I think Chirrut especially clearly does work with the lead characters dramatically. When we first meet him he makes references to Jyn's necklace and his faith in the force that calls back to her mothers position that she ultimately adopts, when confined with Cassian he makes reference to him carrying his own prison with him, on the journey to Eadu he brings up the sense of loss at Jedha's destruction that obviously feeds into Jyn's arc, on Eadu him and Blaze bring up Cassians potential hidden motive to Jyn.

 

Gigoran Monk - I certainly have to give you full credit for putting passion and thought into your apologism for the weaknesses of the film! You write about it very well. But I'm afraid you're just not convincing me.

Claiming that Rogue One is a throwback to the more refined character work of classical ensemble cinema, and that those (such as myself) who do not appreciate it as such must be philistines whose appreciative faculties have been addled by the consumption of too many contemporary popcorn flicks, strikes me as more of a rationalization than a truly effective rebuttal against the charge that the film is riddled with weak characterization and redundant characters. Your belief that our disagreement can be explained by my "simply not liking the characters very much" is something that I can throw right back at you. It is obvious that you love Rogue One, and from that emotional reaction proceeds your construction of arguments about why it should be elevated to the pinnacle of the franchise's canon. As you say, that is fair. I personally believe that almost all discourse about popular culture is essentially an exercise in forming intellectual rationalizations for our base emotional reactions. That's why it is so rare - borderline impossible - for any of us to actually change each other's minds. But that doesn't mean we can't have fun while we fail to do so!

Zeroing in on Jyn, to start with, your 11 point illustration about how the plot explains her journey from purposelessness to purpose, as she changes her mind about the rebellion, does nothing to address my biggest issue with the character. To wit, Jyn has practically nothing about her character that does not relate to her being the daughter of Galen Erso. No particular skills, hobbies, relationships, personal history, or anything that really gives a sense of who she is as an individual, to give a sense of emotional heft to her arc in the story. Yes, it's possible to assemble the details of the film into a coherent pattern of motivation to her actions and behaviour. But the movie isn't giving me what I need to emotionally invest in it. Rogue One effectively indicts itself in its greatest scene (Darth Vader in the hallway) by reminding me and many other thoughtful critics in the audience that we have no more reason to feel sad about the fate of those nameless spear-carriers than we do about what happens to the protagonists. Heck, the characters whose loss elicited the biggest emotional response from me were Admiral Raddus and Director Krennic - and I regard that as a problem!

This is why I harp about so many of the main cast being redundant to the story. It's not that there isn't room for ensemble characters who, as you put it, "remain static so as to place the protagonists in relief", but that isn't a good enough excuse if those ensemble characters chew up so much time and narrative legwork through their introduction and presence, that it inhibits the successful development of the protagonists that they are supposed to be "placing in relief". This is doubly the case for Chirrut and Baze, who I actually ended up caring about slightly more than Jyn and Cassian, simply because the actors were more charismatic.

In the game of intra-franchise comparisons, I believe that the character journeys of Luke (from opposing Darth Vader to trying to save his soul) and Han (from "in it for the money" to "in it for my friends and their cause") contain significantly more nuance and subtlety than anything on display in Rogue One. There' just more there there to their characters.

 

Axrendale

I hate to use this phrase, as there is always room for the further enlightenment of unenlightened minds, but...we may have to agree to disagree.

In my view, some people see film as a "filmed play" and others as a much broader medium that should speak equally well through visual language as through the written and spoken word. IMO, Rogue One has visual and narrative layers that surpass all SW films to date. And I don't believe it's possible to have a fruitful conversation if there's such a yawning chasm between us on this subject.

ETA: And I just realized I'm in the complaints thread...

 

Yes, it's a little off to suggest he only added action to the story; he also added humor and much needed humanity to the first half of the film, which I thought was pretty dark and might have been too depressing otherwise. It was a lovely touch, for example, when we see him commiserate with Jyn after she lost her father.

Does everything really need an explanation? We know that Chirrut was a longtime devotee of the Force, what more do we need to know? Do we need to know the rules of how and when the Force works? Why were Threepio and R2D2 able to avoid being hit crossing that corridor in the Tantive IV in Star Wars, smack dab in the middle of the firefight? Just minutes ago, the stormtroopers had been massacring Rebel troopers left and right, and now suddenly could not hit shiny objects at point blank range! The fact is that the Star Wars Saga is full of these acts of derring-do, hairbreadth escapes, and miraculous moments where victory is pulled from the jaws of defeat. It's full of characters who do over the top things. Now, Rogue One offers something different for a change, more grounded characters who bleed and die, but it also sees to it that it is still Star Wars, and has these wonderful moments that remind you of the saga's roots in the pulps and the golden age of science fiction, where larger than life heroes could beat the odds and the gods. I would classify those moments involving Chirrut in action as consistent with some of the best action scenes in the saga. How is Luke mowing down those Stormtroopers almost singlehandedly in the sequence just after Ben's death any different?

 

Amen. Reminds me of another issue I have with amateur genre critics: their conflation of "backstory" with "character development." It's not what a character was and did before the film that counts. It's who they are, and what they do, in the film.

 

In a one to one movie comparison of R1 to ANH (because that is all Jyn is getting) then Jyn completely overwhelms any story that Han Solo has and comes out well vs Luke. Her journey is much further in one movie than Luke's can be in one. The point is that they pulled elements from Luke's journey to Jyn. Actually Jyn is far closer to Luke in many ways than Rey who is actually closer to Anakin.

I have an excellent summary from someone who talks about how they fail to see how Baz and Chirrut are any much different from Han and Chewbacca in ANH. They aren't really but since we get 2 more movies after their introduction in the first comes across as more meaningful if they had only the one movie.

 

You know how a lot of people complains about the lack of character development in Rogue One but no one ever brings up the fact that a lot of the acting in the movie is WAY the hell better than the acting in the original Star Wars. Some of the lines that Luke and Han say are just not delivered well at all. Let's face it guys these movies are clunky turds.

 

Seeing as how there's more than one person on this forum I actually agree with you. We are many different people with many different opinions.

 

Yeah, I actually really dislike the separation of criticism into complaints threads. It encourages a digging in of views and preconceived notions, rather than facilitating new insights and understanding.

 

And all that made no big difference whatsoever. Those are small and specific moments, but for the main chunk of the plot they weren't as vital as you suggest. You're giving them far more credit than they deserve.
When Chirrut talks about Jyn's necklace, it was just the moment in which we (the audience) are introduced to him. But in terms of character development, it didn't have any further significance for her.
When Chirrut talks about Cassian carrying his own prison, it didn't meant anything for him either as his character progression was tied mainly with Jyn's. And he would never share a personal moment with Chirrut ever again. If there was a consistent interaction between them every now and then, then I would have agreed. But that wasn't the case.
And when Jedha is devastated, it wouldn't have made a big difference whether Chirrut and Baze were there or not. There was already Saw Gerrera (a far more relevant character for Jyn) who decided to die there, bringing the desired dramatic impact of the Death Star's destructive power.
When Baze and Chirrut talk about Cassian, well, yes, I admit this is the only moment in which those two had a little bit importance, although it's really K-2 the one who triggers all the action when he mentions Cassian's blaster was set on sniper mode. You could simply change that moment with Jyn being continuously suspicious about Cassian's urge to go alone to do reconnaissance of the area. My point is that Baze and Chirrut were always side players with a very marginal interaction with the main leads. With some minor adjustments to the plot, they could have been completely removed. In no way they can't be compared to Han and Chewie as someone says in one of the last comments. It's Cassian and K-2 the "Han and Chewie" of this movie (even Cassian had his "Han Solo moment" when he saved Jyn from Krennic).

I think K-2 did a consistently better job at being a comic relief, but to each his own. And the humanity or light-heartedness aspect wasn't really that crucial (not to the point of saying it was "much needed") for the first half of the movie as the main overlying theme of the movie was hope and courage prevailing during dark times. And Jyn and Cassian perfectly embodied that progression.

Not necessarily, but it does need the necessary elements to make sense within a given context. Grievous said he was trained on the Jedi arts by Count Dooku and that was enough to explain why a non-Force sensitive was able to fight using lightsabers. But in Chirrut's case? His devotion to the Force doesn't really explain anything as the other movies have been quite clear: only a Force sensitive is able to do such seemingly impossible feats.
What the writers did with Chirrut was deliberately keeping ambiguous what he can do and what he can't, so that they could have some liberty to making him do whatever it's needed at the moment (either making looking him "badass" taking down a TIE, or walking through heavy enemy fire). That, I as said before, is lazy storytelling.

I knew someone would bring R2, C-3PO and Luke.
During the corridor scene, both parts (imperials and rebels) were shooting at each other. The droids weren't the target. And during Ben's death, at least Luke was responding the fire. But in both cases, it was something called plot armor in the form of a classic Hollywood cliché: the bad guys have bad aim.
However, Chirrut's case is not the same as he was actually expecting the enemies wouldn't fire at him. So yes, they're very different.

 

Something i am thinking a lot, i am a person that i really have problems with the characters of this movie, they are not that bad, but when i was leaving the cinema after watching RO, i was thinking ''well, everybody dies, and i don't know them past, them story'', few times the characters speaks about his past, and seeing now that we have books and comics that shows them pasts, shows me, the problem of this movie: it's a really incomplete movie.
Not in the way of deleted scenes, but things that could be easily says on the movie, but nothing this happens, and they prefer put these informations in other media (TFA , that i like, have this same problems, example the C3PO's arm).
These days, my father finally watched RO (because of him i am here), and he likes a lot of the movie, but after he asks me ''Hey, cool characters, but strange that we know really little aboy them'', and i say that these informations are on books and comics, and he says ''Hey son, i am movie guy, in my time, we liked SW for the great movies in the time'' He never read these other media, but he is a great SW fan, like me, but i think that just see the movie, today, looks so incomplete, Rogue One have this problem in this way for me, but hey, it's a good movie for the begin of SW Anthology movies, now, hopes for Han Solo now.

 

Any character interaction is going to be a "specific moment" of course and actually the scenes I mention make up a good percentage of Chirrut's screen time overall. Him and Baze were supporting characters I'd agree but I do think they clearly brought something to the film that could not have been easily replicated by giving extra lines to the leads, both his specific interactions with the leads and his wider presence introducing a character with a strong sense of faith but also a more compassionate view than Cassian.

I would disagree with your points these moments didn't have significance, as I said Chirrut mentioning Jyn's necklace and his faith in the force is I think a pretty obvious reference to Jyn's mother acts as one of the earlier moments of her shift towards selflessness. It isn't entirely responsible for this shift of course but nore should it be, rather its an early interaction between characters that lays some groundwork for what follows. It does feed back into Monk's argument that Rogue One operates on a more subtle level than a lot of recent blockbusters, I don't need Chirrut to make some blunt "the force is good Jyn, you should fight the Empire!" comment and then some equally blunt "thanks I couldn't have done it without your comment earlier!" return to see how such a scene adds to the characters story.

 

Yes, sure they brought something to the film as small as it was. Even Bodhi did despite his modest role. But looking at the big picture, it was all about Jyn and Cassian's journey (as it was always meant).The thing here is that as Axrendale said, Chirrut, Baze and Bodhi weren't as pivotal as you and Gigoran Monk have been claiming.
Those three could have been removed from the plot, and it would have remained pretty much the same with some minor changes. Again, did they brought something? Yes, but in no way they were the same level of important as -let's say- Han, Chewie or Ben in ANH.

Anyway, let Gigoran Monk elaborate it:

Indeed. It's beautiful as Krennic would say. You just summarized the main character progression of Rogue One. And you know what? You never mentioned Chirrut and Baze one single time in it. They have some moments here and there, but as a whole, they don't add that much to the big picture other than being the ensemble color (as you said). Thank you very much. That takes me back to the first point I commented in this thread a couple of months ago, which was that I wasn't much of a fan of the decision of cutting Jyn and Cassian out of the beach battle as they were the characters I felt more interested about (and rightly so as they were the best developed) and I really wanted to see them shine there.

Wrong. I love Jyn, Cassian and K-2SO. And I think Krennic was a brilliant antagonist. It's Chirrut (a supporting character) the one I felt it was poorly written.