Rogue One Is Rogue One a True Spin-off?

I am not sure if this can be called a spin-off. It fits perfectly into the saga. For sure it fits better into the story line than TFA. Much of it has been mentioned in the other movies and Lucas' original scripts before. The events are an essential prerequisite of ANH.
To call it a spin-off is an arbitrary decision by Disney, enforced by the missing opening crawl and the typical music. So it was a marketing decision. In order to satisfy the definition of a spin-off, a movie or series needs to be able to stand alone, this movie clearly cannot.

 

With apologies to Eric Foreman, RO is EP 3.5.
Its seamless to EP 4. Solo and Boba films will be true 'standalones'.

 

... if Solo ends with Han sitting in the Cantina with Greedo walking in....

 

Funny how the word 'prequel' was invented for Star Wars and has become such an ugly one as a result they dare not speak it.

 

I'm all for that if they CGI ANH Harrison Ford

 

It's not part of the story being told by the saga films. The results of the story are, which is why it fits well with ANH, but the story of the DS plans is its own.

 

It's a prequel and a spinoff.

There, issue resolved.

 

Prequel was not invented for Star Wars. Etymology search says it dates back to 1973.

It seems to have been fairly non-essential for the past 39 years, what makes it essential now?

I agree this movie does not stand on its own, but like your definition of essential prerequisite, your definition of spin-off is just wrong.

 

It's a prequel and a spin off. It can be all those things...and more.

 

It is very much a prequel. Whether or not it's a spin-off is a little less clear. I normally think of a spin off as something that is tangentially related but a distinctly different story. Like Frasier:Cheers. Rogue One is directly related to our original saga and part of same story.

 

This. Why is this so difficult for people to wrap their heads around? It CAN be both.

 

I'm actually not sure it can. At least not the way I think about the two terms. A prequel/sequel is an extension of an existing story while a spinoff is an entirely separate story that happens to feature known characters/events/etc...

 

It's a spinoff that focuses on characters not seen in other films and has a different tone and feel than the other films, that takes place before as well as sets up the events of ANH. It's both.

 

For you, it's both. For me, it's just a prequel. That's fine.

 

I actually don't think its tone and feel aren't that different from ANH and (especially) ESB. It's amazing how seamlessly it segues into ANH.

 

If it does not follow the main cast its a spinoff no matter how much it ties in.

 

Agree OP. Can't speak for the other Anthology films but this feels like Episode 3.5 to me.

 

Ignoring the definitions particular to business studies, here's how we English speakers define 'spin-off'.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/spin-off
a product that develops from another more important product:
The research has had spin-offs in the development of medical equipment.

a programme or other show involving characters from a previous programme:
The stage show is a spin-off from a television programme.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spin–off
: a collateral or derived product or effect : by-product; also : a number of such products <the spin–off from the space program>

: something that is imitative or derivative of an earlier work, product, or establishment; especially : a television show starring a character popular in a secondary role of an earlier show

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/spin-off
any product that is an adaption, outgrowth, or development of another similar product:
The paperback is a spin-off from the large hardcover encyclopedia.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/spin-off
1 A byproduct or incidental result of a larger project.
‘the commercial spin-off from defense research’

1.1 A product marketed by its association with a popular television program, movie, personality, etc.
[as modifier] ‘spin-off merchandising’

We need to agree to the same definitions of terms for a decent conversation to happen.

 

I disagree. For me it's about the story being told, not the characters in the story.

 

To me it also depends on what Lucasfilm calls it.

 

Think it this way: We follow Jyn from her childhood through to her involvement with the Rebellion and her theft of the Death Star plans. Those plans make it to the Tantive IV, where soldiers hand the plans to Leia, who gives them to Artoo. Artoo becomes the possession of Luke, who ends up meeting Obi-Wan. It's like a long relay race. Luke doesn't even appear for the first 15 minutes of ANH.

If R1 is viewed as the first film, not the eighth, it features the main cast. It's just that they all die, leading secondary characters to gradually move to the forefront as ANH progresses.

 

It also has the Death Star and Rebellion. Continues the story from ROTS, Rebellion etc. and goes to ANH.
Just as important as TPM-ROTS.
The Saga evolves once more.
Might have helped if the Rebellion scenes were kept in ROTS.

 

The story being told is that of the Eryso's, Krennic and the sabotage of the death Star. It is a spin-off. If Star Wars was about the death Star it would be strictly a prequel.

 

As best as I can tell, the story being told from R1 through ANH is that of the discovery and destruction of the Death Star by the rebel alliance.

 

I'll just put it this way....whenever it comes out on Blu Ray, and I go to watch the series in order, I will watch them I-III, RO, IV-VII. I can't imagine going straight from ROTS to ANH now after seeing Rogue One. Their story and their incredible sacrifice is too great to skip.

And I want a movie sat between VI and VII showing exactly what happened with Luke and Ben Solo now. Between the incredible advances in CGI actors and the existence of Sebastian Stan, we can have a young Luke movie or two. Or three.