Rogue One Will they survive? / Couldn't someone have lived?

I found Bodhi's death dramatic and moving. He was the escape route. When he died, that door closed; the Rogues were stuck on Scarif unless they managed to scrounge up another ride (good luck with that! Ships were blowing up all over the place.)

I probably identified more with Bodhi than anyone else in R1. I'm a retired transport plane flight engineer, so I had a pretty good idea of what his job was like before he got caught up in this whole rebellion thing. So naturally I was hoping he'd make it out alive and flying, and it was a real blow when his ship exploded.

 

It's not ironic. It's the whole thematic point. Self-sacrifice is often the birth of hope. And often at times of greatest despair, hope emerges. That's what makes it such a bittersweet film, and the most mature one, IMO.

These are timeless themes that span cultures, myths and religions.

 

Perhaps. But killing each and every one of the protagonists still seems excessive to me, and as I said before it's hardly as ''realistic'' as some claim it to be - yes, there are casualties in war but with the entirety of the infantry contingent, a fair amount of star fighters and a considerable proportion of the rebel fleet utterly annihilated for a chance of finding a weakness in the Death Star, and with Darth Vader himself in close pursuit the ending was rather jarring tonally. If things hadn't played out EXACTLY as they had in ANH there would have been no Luke, the Death Star would not have been destroyed and the Rebel HQ would. It relies far too much on the audience knowing that actually everything does work out, and with the main trio taking over the story from this point, the entire film becomes a shaggy dog story: our heroes die, never to be mentioned again, whilst those who benefitted from their sacrifice go on to great glory.

 

I don't think "realism" is the point. Self-sacrifice is. The entire film is characterized by the progression of people (and the Alliance) from cynical self-preservation to altruistic self-sacrifice. All of the main characters dying makes that point with bold force, and makes Leia's, Luke's and Han's effort in ANH all that more meaningful.

 

Except it doesn't. What narrative purpose did Bodhi's death actually serve? A nameless extra died to give him the chance, he succeeded, and then died himself. But he needn't have died from a story telling perspective, Jyn and Cassian's death would have been enough to make that point, Chirrut's and K2's as well. Both Bodhi and Baze could have lived without taking away from that point. In fact, to my view it would have made more sense for at least one of them to live. Baze regained his faith for a whole thirty seconds before he was blown up, but him keeping that faith even in the face of so much killing would be more satisfying to my taste. Bodhi has been there right from the beginning, he smuggled the message that started everything off out - for him to survive to see what the sacrifice of his friends achieved would be more satisfying than him just being killed off.

Every member of our heroes die. The main bad guy also dies. Hundreds of nameless grunts on both sides die. The efforts of the Trio in ANH gain nothing from it as we are told of the Rebels' ''first victory'' and the plans are essentially a macguffin, the great sacrifice it took to obtain them isn't even mentioned, it's a footnote at best.

 

What exactly would it have added to the movie to have a few random secondary characters survive the mission? Would that have really added to the movie? Something like half of the Rebellion got wiped out in that battle.

 

How fitting that in a year with a multitude of celebrity deaths, the potentially highest grossing film of 2016 is one where everyone dies.

 

Nothing at all. In my opinion it would have detracted from it somewhat.

 

That's the whole point. The Alliance was at its most desperate end...Leia said as much in her message to Obi-Wan... "This is our most desperate hour"

The story HAD to show how bad things were and how everything had to go exactly right in ANH for the Alliance to survive at all.

This gamble was either going to succeed or it would be the end of the Rebellion. One of the Council members actually called for the end of the Rebellion rather than going to Scarif at all.

Also, they do get mentioned again, as Red Squadron is renamed Rogue Squadron in their honor.

 

I get that, and I respect that opinion. But I still think that the deaths of Jyn and Cassian would have made the same point perfectly adequately (certainly with Chirrut and K2 dying as wellprimarily for plot purposes as opposed to thematic ones) and that in story terms the sheer bodycount is bordering on the excessive. I don't think it was ''wrong'' and I can certainly see why they would do it that way but it would not be my first choice if it were me making the decisions.

 

It wasn't at all excessive, it was either a final decisive battle or a thread of hope.

I would say a far larger number was captured when Vader arrived rather than were killed, as ultimately a very small number was planet side...they all died.

Yes many star fighters were destroyed in orbit hence the scramble to fill the squadrons that we knew about for ANH already...most of the rest in orbit are captured, not killed.

 

Ya I agree... I was watching a John Wayne movie recently that had the same issue. It was called "The Alamo". Everyone died, seemed a bit much. They also did the whole self sacrifice angle for the greater good. Another movie I watched about some guy named George Custer same thing, they all died. When movies do this it feels unrealistic, we all know in real like NOT everyone dies.

 

It does sometimes happen that everyone dies but very very very rarely. The ones where everyone on one side gets wiped out (like the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, see I can play that game too) are notable because it really doesn't happen very often and when it does the side that had their army annihilated generally tend to see it as a Very Bad Thing and not a source of hope. It DOES feel unrealistic for literally everyone with a name (and hundreds without) to get wiped out regardless of whether it happened in real life or not.

 

Funny you mention the 300, but then try to say it doesn't symbolize hope when that is exactly what that did symbolize.

 

It didn't actually. Thermopylae falling meant the Greeks had to fall back - a different battle was the one that actually gave them any hope at all. In the film it was a big deal but in real life it just meant hanging on a little bit longer and a victory at sea gave them hope instead.

 

The Spartans using such a small force to hold back so many was inspiring. Many of the Greeks were not yet willing to fight, but the inspiration of the 300 gave them hope and they were able to muster more Greek nations to the war and ultimately win because they could see how one Greek soldier was worth so much more than several Persians in their eyes.

 

here is the thing, in wars, there are countless instances of squad sized elements getting wiped out. In many cases history does not know their story or their names. That is kinda what played out here. By the time the we hit the crawl in ANH they are simple rebels involved in an attack on the empire they resulted in the plans being stolen. The totality of their actions is remembered, but they are just some of many who died for the same thing. In a movie it feels different because they are focused on, but in reality every X-wing we see blown up or those on Cruisers getting destroyed made the same sacrifice and were heroic in the way they could be.

Think of Pearl Harbor. Many men died that day, some might have gone out in a blaze of glory on a machine gun tacking down a few enemy planes with them other died in the belly of the Arizona when it exploded. They all made the same sacrifice and we remember the totality of their actions and of the attack but not the individual stories.

 

Generally you may be right, but in this specific case where they all end up trapped on an enemy-controlled planet, it makes total sense. There are many historical cases in war of platoons or even entire armies being surrounded and all killed or forced to surrender. That's why Stalingrad was such a big deal, for example. The Germans pretty much lost an entire ARMY because it was cut off from retreat and surrounded. So it does happen.

 

Squad sized elements yes. Several battalions worth and a large proportion of the fleet, no. The ENTIRE ARMY on the planet was destroyed, literally destroyed. When that happened to Custer it was seen as a total disaster.

In the films, yes. In real life, nope. Athens and other states were all set to fight right from the beginning (there were several other factions at Thermopylae not just the Spartan 300) and they had a strategy to fight the Persians, a strategy that included holding the pass at Thermopylae. Not to mention the Greek soldiers weren't worth that much more individually but had better armour and a defensible position which negated the numbers considerably.

I repeat I am NOT saying that them all dying doesn't make sense or is not a perfectly valid artistic choice on the director's part. I am only saying that I don't particularly agree with it and would have preferred at least one or two to have lived, and that this would not have negated the overall message in my opinion.

 

Entire army on the planet? What...20-30 guys in total even after reinforcements from a single U-wing?

It was a very small force on the ground and only a few star fighters in the air that made it through the shield.

Not an entire battalion, but just a few squads.

 

Well, the warrior cult of the Spartans is known from history, so it is plausible to believe they would be superior fighters to the rank file of the other greeks or the persians. Think of Seal team 6 versus rank and file from another army. If a brigade shows up to take them out they will lose and all die if their enemy wishes it, but they are going to make the attacker bleed.

And yes, in history some of these instances are seen negatively (Custer) or heroic (The Alamo), in the SW universe Rogue One would be seen by the rebel side as heroic.

 

Yeah but the Spartans still lost and it was the Athenians who actually pulled the Greek fat out of the fire by crushing the Persian fleet. The Spartans did make the Persians work for the win, but the Persians still won, and the Spartans lost.

The Rebels no doubt see it as heroic, I don't deny that. But I personally as a viewer find it excessive and from a purely spectator out of universe perspective would prefer to have someone live. In universe I can see the logic behind it and it makes sense. Out of universe, I don't care for it much, that's all.

 

The Greeks warriors were worth more as individuals because of equipment, training and the fact that they were free men volunteering to fight for their homes vs the Persians which were mostly comprised of slaves being forced to fight for something they had no care for.

 

Again, in the films. Xerxes had the bad luck to only lose the war but have history written by the winners - winners who happened to have a great fondness and talent for writing at that. He really wasn't quite the monster he's seen as nor did he actually rely on slaves to fight with - some were slaves, but many were not. And again, it makes no difference at all because the Persians still won the battle, slaves or no slaves.

 

Can't get it to edit so if mods can/want to merge please do. Anyhoo, I am bowing out of this little discussion but I thought it worthwhile to say I appreciate that everyone kept it civil and there was no strawmanning or ad hominems. I stand by my view and I can't imagine I've convinced anyone to come around, but I did enjoy the discussion itself.