Rogue One Rogue One Reviews/Reactions thread

I have no issue with you not wanting to see the hobbit films but I do take a slight issue with this comment;

This is both a bit dismissive and also a bit condescending. By saying it is ONLY suitable to those in their late teens, you make a slight bash towards those that are not in that group and still liked the films.

Imagine that someone came here and said that he refuses to watch any of the SW films as those are bloated action spectacles, suitable only for young children.
I would imagine many here would take issue with that.

Perhaps you did not intend to come across this way but had you simply said that you aren't interested in the films and left out the other remark, then I think people here would have less issue with that.

You don't want to see them, fine.
The films have flaws a plenty and PJ could have needed more restraint and been less focused on the new 3D and the script needed work. But I overall liked them, not great but they had some good stuff.

RE: the Hobbit and to keep it on topic, since someone mentioned R1.
How many characters are there in R1?
Jyn and her crew, that is six people. Krennic, Vader, Tarkin, three more. Saw, Galen plus 2-3 important rebels. So a total of about 13-14 people.

The Hobbit has 13 dwarves, Bilbo, Gandalf, Elrond, Gollum, Beorn, the Elf King, Bard and Smaug.
That is about 20 people.

And based on comments here and reviews, those that have issues with R1 tend to have more problems with the first act while the third act is praised a lot.
The first act is criticized for jumping around too much, being episodic and introducing many characters.

If you would do the Hobbit as just one film, consider how episodic that would be.
Start in the Shire, Troll episode, Rivendell, Misty Mountains with Goblins and Gollum, Warg chase with eagle escape and Beorn interlude. Then you have Mirkwood with spiders and the Elf King, Lake Town, Smaug and Bilbo, Smaug attacking Lake Town and dying. The siege of Erebor with Thorin getting greedy and loosing his mind, the battle of five armies and finally Bilbo going home.

And speaking of the battle, if you do the film like the book, you don't see much of it as Bilbo gets knocked out early on. Imagine R1 if you skip 75% of the end battle and just have someone tell us the result.
I think that a single Hobbit film would have the flaws of the first act of R1 but lack the strength of R1's third act.

No, I think if a studio tried to do the Hobbit as just one film, first the number of characters would get cut down. 5-6 dwarves instead of 13. Beorn too most likely. And if you just want a simple children's film, they could cut the big battle and end the film with Smaug's death and everyone is happy.

I think people look at the Hobbit and think it is quick and simple because of the length and that it is a "children's book". I don't think it is just that. It started as a bed time story that Tolkien told his children but as he wrote it, he included a lot more details and backstory than just a simple children's story.

Also, a book can be episodic and it works fine. Take the Wizard of Oz book. That is also rather episodic and the Wicked With of the West has a fairly small part in the book. The film made her into a far bigger character that had a presence throughout the film. And that makes sense as it plays to the strength's of a film.

To sum up, it is debatable if three films was needed but to me, two films was needed if you wanted to do the story any kind of justice. Yes I have seen the 70's cartoon and it is ok but not great.

Back to Galen,
@La Calavera

But if this is so, wouldn't they also know about Krennic and how important he was?
If so, wouldn't he be a better target for Cassian?
Also Galen was not on the DS, he was at some refinery. If he was so important, wouldn't his place be on the DS and working to make sure that the weapon is functional?

Again, have Cassian be ordered to get Galen out if possible but to kill him if that was not feasible.
It accomplishes the same thing in making the rebels morally grey without them seeming dumb.
If they get him, the empire looses his services and they can potentially get lots of info.
Killing him without even trying an extraction is wasteful.

As for evidence, they did know that an imperial pilot had defected to the rebels on Jedha, apparently on Galen's orders and this pilot had info about this new weapon. Sure it might be a trick but they did have evidence that suggested that Galen might be on their side.

But if you argue that they didn't know what the audience knows then they also wouldn't know what Krennic told Galen at the start of the film, that he was essential.
To them, Galen is just one guy that works in this weapon and could thus be very replaceable.
And this issue is very much that they lack info, they need to know what they are dealing with.
Galen has a lot of very crucial information and is thus far more valuable alive than dead.

After Jedha, the rebels know that the DS has fired it's main weapon and it utterly destroyed a city plus a part of the planet too. So the DS is ready and it's weapon is working.
To assume that it needs a lot more work and that Galen is the only one that can provide this, that is fairly baseless assumptions and not a very good reason to kill Galen.
Esp if this was just this general's plan and not something that the whole rebel high command was behind.

@tokilamockingbrd

But as I said above, if they are operating on limited intel, would they know how crucial Galen was?
I don't see how they would know that and not know about Krennic and how important he was.
So Krennic would make as good if not better target. And Cassian could have shot him but didn't.
And again, if Galen is so important, he would most likely be ON the DS, doing his work.
And getting to him there would be very, very difficult.

But the rebels know as much as he does after Jedha. The DS is ready, Galen might be on their side so yes he wasn't being compassionate when he didn't kill Galen. He was being smart and logical. Galen could give them lots of useful intel and thus it would be stupid to kill him.

In closing, the order to kill Galen smacks a little of a forced conflict. Have to order be "Get Galen if possible but kill him if need be.", that does the same job and makes better sense. At least to me.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Honestly I always thought the number of Dwaves in the Hobbit was a bit of a non issue, for one thing Jackson like Tolkien doesn't really get bogged down in trying to flesh all of them out, only really Throin, Balin and Kili have much in the way of individual plots and beyond them only really Dwalin, Kili and Bofur have much time spent building up character. The rest basically provide the numbers for a traveling group (and have very basic characteristics to tell them apart) because that's what the plot of the film calls for, a larger group on the move that can represent more of the dwarvish race.

I'd agree very much though that if you made a single film Hobbit you'd need to cut back on the books plot very heavily, no trolls, no eagles, no beorn, no spiders, etc at a minimum and even then things would be rather rushed.

Honestly I tend to view the Hobbit films and Rogue One with inhabiting quite similar territory as well, looking to fill in the gaps of the larger existing narrative. The difference being I think the Hobbit films also looked to introduce a larger heroic/tragic narrative around BIlbo/Thorin.

 

I think Desolation of Smaug is really good. Definitely the best of the bunch, IMO.

 

I agree with that. Right up until Thorin started wheelbarrow-surfing on lava...

 

Here's another prominent Youtube's review of Rogue One to discuss about

 

I was saying that in contrast to the fact that it's adapted from a children's book. I don't mean that "It's only suitable for teenagers"; I mean that it excludes the intended audience for the novel.

I'm not talking about quality. I dunno, replace Twilight with... Bridget Jones's Baby. I'm sure that if someone here said they weren't interested in seeing that movie, they wouldn't get the insane level of pushback that I'm getting here.

 

I've found nearly every "video review" of Rogue One to rest on disappointment based on expectations. Expectations of a straightforward heist film to get the DS plans, and frustration with the "murky plot" in the first half.

IMO, this characteristic is precisely why Rogue One is so much better than most blockbuster films.

Namely: The murkiness of the plot in the first half mirrors the moral murkiness of the protagonists. As plot clarity increases (when the RO crew decide to go get the plans), the morality is clear as well. And that is mirrored visually (a deliberate choice confirmed in the Art of Rogue One). In the first half, all the planets we visit are murky, grungy, rainy or misty (Lah'Mu, Ring of Kafrene, Wobani, Jedha, Eadu). The characters are literally navigating in a fog of war. In the second half, once the mission is on, the planet is a clear and bright place. Moral clarity mirrored by a clear seas and skies.

This decision to keep the plotting in the first half so foggy is therefore not only refreshingly realistic (in a spy-movie sort of way), but also smartly tied up with the visual language of the film. The progression from murky self-preservation to clear self-sacrifice is communicated brilliantly, both narratively and visually.

But because for many, Star Wars is supposed to only exist in the "fun space opera genre," a lot of reviewers simply have difficult accepting that Rogue One acts more like...a historical drama than a sci-fi/ fantasy.

As soon as you let preconceptions go (and it's something I had to do on second viewing), the film makes perfect sense on a lot of levels.

 

Can you change the thread title to "The official Hobbit discussion thread"?

Thanks.

 

Pro Scoundrel

Sorry. Just saw this after I posted. No more Hobbit talk from me. I think it began with bladder talk.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean for this to go off-topic. Let me conclude and then segue.

OK, 1 3-hour film and that's my final offer. It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World was 210 minutes, and athe Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming was 126 minutes. The Godfather was 177 minutes, while The Godfather II was 200 minutes. Many characters. You can talk about the number of characters, but all don't need a great deal of screen time individually. How often did Talia Shire appear? Or in LOTR, how much actual screen time did Saruman get? Or Tom Bombadil? And all of these films have great ensemble acting, so the sum is greater then the parts. And I think PJ is good at directing actors, but unlike the Flanneled One he doesn't know when to quit--or cut--as well. Sure, he cut out Tom completely and Saruman in ROTK, but he can be Mr. Excess. GL was accused of excess, but as we can see, especially in ANH and ROTS, he can cut.

So if PJ had done The Hobbit as one 3-hour film, cuts would be necessary. That's filmmaking. And not just scenes, but within a scene. I just watched The Boys from Brazil again. The scene in the novel in which Lieberman learns from Bruno Ganz about cloning has one less character.

Roger Ebert said you should see the movie before reading the novel. True, but I read SW, The Exorcist, The Godfather, Jaws, Rosemary's Baby, The Omen, Marathon Man, TBFB, and The Omen first. GWTW, 007, and Jurassic Park later. Never read 2001, 2010, LOTR, HO, or Dune. Last three I really want to. I'm really glad I read JP after I saw the film. Despite the huge differences between the novel Jaws and the film, I loved both even though I read the novel first. JP is different for me, I'm glad I read the novel afterwards.

Ebert studied English and got as far as ABD for his PhD, IIRC. He gave LOTR and TTT only 3 stars because they were too big and didn't make the hobbits the center as they were in the novels. ROTK, my least favorite of LOTR, he gave 3 1/2 stars because in part of the focus on the hobbits. He was always idiosyncratic, that Ebert. I've never read the novels, and can't comment on I wish Tom hadn't been cut or Saruman should have died in the movie like he did in the novel. Some day I will get around to reading them. Glad I watched the movies first. I loved the movies and wanted some distance.

Despite my background in graduate studies in philosophy and religion, and love for texts, mythology, and theology, I can't get into The Silmarillion.

The Hobbit isn't as grand as LOTR. Was never meant to be. PJ has a problem with excess to which Mortensen has attested.

Now back to SW, we can see how good GL is at giving form to something just from the evolution of ANH 1973-1977.

And as for R1, I was disappointed that so many of the trailer shots were not in the film. Can't accuse the trailers of giving away too much. Now it seems like the reshoots and editing created a different and excellent film. I'd love to have seen a GE-only version--and even his version had multiplicity to it. John Knoll notes how GE didn't have his actors block in a rigid way and gave them more freedom. Mendelssohn commented that 20-30 scenes could have had several ways of going about it. Then Gilroy was brought in and as we can see, what we got in the final cut differs a lot from the trailers. And all the main characters die. Great film and one and done.

I hope the DVD has all the cut scenes--wishful thinking--and the Making of documentary is honest about what and why changes were made. It would be great for a course in film school.

 

I can only speak for myself. But as I sat there seeing the film for the first time, I can't recall having ANY problems with the first act at all. It was completely essential a sense of urgency needed to be established from the very beginning I thought. And massive respect to Edwards, the whole film was seamless. I really don't know what some fans are going on about? *shrug*

 

It's Generation ADD.

Also, I read the top critics on RT. Many who liked the film and who didn't like the film complained about the first act. The problem is these critics can only watch one movie one time in most cases, though I know both Corliss and Ebert saw AOTC twice. So, they may have had trouble, especially if they aren't Fanboys, waiting for the payoff.

I had no problem with Act I the first viewing, or the second or third. Some members here may have had a problem the the first viewing, but not afterwards.

Even then, I wonder if these video reviewers and some members here were influenced by what they had read or heard.

 

Generation ADD sums it up perfectly (and made me lol) What worked for me prior to seeing it, was an understanding that the narrative had a lot to establish and couldn't really afford to hang about. I hate to harp on, but I really can't lavish enough praise on Edwards for the film he delivered

 

Rogue One holds up to repeat viewings. I've seen it three times, and have enjoyed it more and more each time.

What I really appreciate about Rogue One is the dialogue and performances...there were only a couple of times where I found myself wincing at something clunky or cheesy. I'm not expecting an Oscar-winning screenplay from Star Wars, but I found the acting and character interaction to be extremely believable and well-delivered. It had some of the most natural, truly "human" acting from any of the SW films. I liked that they slowed the film down a few times and let the characters breathe a bit.

In contrast, the more times I saw TFA (six in the theaters over about a month), I found myself discovering more and more noticeable flaws in the story and the dialogue.

As far as I'm concerned, Rogue One obliterates The Force Awakens in terms of my overall SW film rankings.

 

Nice tribute to Carrie Fisher but I kind of guessed what was coming with that TFA segment afterwards which honestly is I think a big issue with a lot of youtube reviews of Rogue One, so much praise was lavished on Abrams film by this subset of reviewers last year that something offering an alternative that many preffer gets a defensive negative reaction.

To be fair as well I do think expectation is a big issue as well and personally I did find on first viewing that the opening half of the film was a bit patchy for me as well because it wasn't really what I expected. On second viewing I wouldn't say it was absolutely perfect(I think the segment right after the opening scene is a bit rushed) but actually I found the sections on Jehda and Eadu to be the strongest part of the film. The idea that the actual rebellions solidity and morality is going to be the hang point of the drama is really not something the trailers had hinted at much but is also something that plays into what we see from the characters..

Granted I do think Rogue Ones character shift more towards the less openly charismatic(although not lacking it it) than the OT but the way it actually uses them is I think very much more inline with the OT than TFA. His talk about a layered more subtle performance from Finn for example is just not something I saw on screen at all, Boyega did certainly have personally but I think Abrams created a very broad simple comedic character there despite the potential for more in his setup. This kind of characterisation that as he points out is standard for most blockbusters these days(even something like Doc Strange switches to it as soon as the opening drama is over) to the degree that its expected. A character like Han Solo for me though is very much NOT in this mold outside maybe of the Endor section to ROTJ, he has a lot of personality but the writing doesn't resort to making him overly cartoonish and I think Cassian works very much in that mold.

Honestly I think the main issue with Edwards Godzilla is simply the nature of the film, its ultimately about giant monsters fighting each other(and indeed setting up a larger franchise in which they will do again in the future) which obviously makes it difficult to put the focus strongly on personal drama. What drama it does have though is I think very well delivered again much more akin to the more naturalistic new wave style of the OT rather than the cartoonish nature of the typical modern blockbuster.

In terms of character specifics I really don't understand his comment on Cassian's morally dubious nature being quickly introduced and forgotten, surely its there right from when we meet him when he kills and informer, then he's told to kill Galen and doesn't question it, whilst on Jehda he's obviously negative on the guardians like Chirrut dispite there moral stance then on Eadu he obviously holds back from killing Galen and finally he helps in bringing together a lot of the team for the attack on Sacrif.

As with RLM I think his talk about "fan service" is really totally backwards, granted I'm in agreement with him that the very small number of actual "nudge nudge" callbacks in Rogue One are rather cheap and needless but theres a massive difference between this and the film actually looking to recreate the world/tone of the OT in an immersive fashion, that's not nostalgia its wanting to see more of what you enjoyed in the originals. TFA for me works in the opposite direction, its not really interested in recreating the tone or the overall world of the originals favouring a modern blockbuster style instead but it is interested in constantly looking to go after our nostalgia about specific elements of the OT, be they characters, designs or settings. I think you see that as well in that Rogue One actually includes the same kind of originality we expected from the OT film after film, yes it keeps some designs/settings but its also constantly introducing new elements as well.

As far as CGI characters go as well personally I think that the "uncanny valley" naturally makes they well suited to being villians and/or morally dubious. You go back to Tron Legacy for example and I think the actual young CGI Jeff Bridges with his son looks rather creepy but the Clu character dispite not looking 100% real is fine, the same with Tarkin here and indeed much earlier with Gollum in LOTR.

 

Rogue One is a war movie, and some of these “critics” are reviewing it as if it was supposed to be either a heist movie or a family-friendly space adventure with super fun characters like TFA. And they are baffled at why is not that like that, or why they can’t remember all the characters’ names, or why weren’t they cracking jokes or being exaggerated caricatures of new generation stereotypes, or why the plot was murky and not simplistic, or why some parts were boring when they could have been mindless fun.
It’s almost as if they never watched a war movie in their lives.

And don’t get me wrong, it’s perfectly fine to not like the movie. I would never recommend this movie to my mom because she falls asleep in war movies and she would likely fall asleep in this one too. But I would expect at least the “critics” to review the movie for what it’s supposed to be, and how it fares compared to other war movies like Saving Private Ryan or Apocalypse Now or Dirty Dozen and where it lacks, instead of comparing the movie to other movies that belong to different genres. And so far, very few critics recognized what type of movie RO is.

It reminds me of the criticism of Kylo Ren – the most divisive character in the first weeks of criticisms because he wasn’t Vader 2.0. Fortunately, most people eventually ended up recognizing what type of character he was supposed to be, and now they praise him or criticize him with that in mind. Waiting for the same to happen to RO.

 

I do tend to think as welkl that Abrams modern blockbuster style is naturally more "critic proof" as well, the idea that if you don't really attempt anything that ambitious and just stick to a fast paced larger than life thrill ride then critics will tend to hold you to a lower standard.

 

I think that is true for some critics. I mean, both Sam and Mike from RLM thought Jurassic World was a great movie (and a few movie critics who gave a rotten review to RO too).

But not all. There has been negative criticism leveled at RO from critics who also criticized blockbuster movies like TFA and Jurassic World, but they criticized for different reasons. Not all negative critics have obvious bias preferences or give it a pass to one movie while ignoring the flaws. And of course, there are critics who gave positive reviews to all these movies also for different reasons.

 

Yeah certainly it doesn't apply to everyone but I think Sam and RLM do sum up a style of modern reviewers who take this route and I really do not like the end result which IMHO is glorying in mediocrity.

To me this just seems to be doing the studios work for them, basically forget about a director who might take risks and aim high because it might give you a SW prequel or a Matrix sequal but equally without that aimbition you'll never get SW OT or LOTR level film either IMHO and I'll personally take the odd misfire for the highs. Indeed I'll also take a film that aims higher and is mostly successful with a few flaws over one that aims low but doesn't make any big errors.

 

I glance over the rotten reviews at RT, seemed about half were SJW types who did not like the violence and the other half we the opposite end of the scale and complain about diversity pandering and such. Only a small few actually seemed to give it a negative review for the movie itself, many of them are some sort of ideologue and let that cloud the reviews of the qualities of the movies themselves but rather focus on what messages they think a movie should or should not send.

 

To me, TFA and R1 have different strengths and different flaws, but they are both worthy of upper tier status alongside the original trilogy. I'd probably put both ahead of Jedi. After my 3rd R1 viewing I might have placed it up there with ESB, on my 4th, the flaws leapt out again, so I don't know if that was a product of too many viewings too soon, but it's now dropped back below TFA for me - though when it works, it really works. What I think it beats TFA on is scale, world-building and possibly cinematography. I say possibly because I find TFA also looks pretty damn gorgeous. But I think R1 may edge it. TFA has way more charm though and possibly I like the characters more - though the R1 mobs are great too. TFA has the weakest of the bunch in Hux and Phasma is really an extra in TFA. None of the R1 stand out as weaker than the rest.

 

I can't imagine "SJW types" (I can't stand that term) being offended by the violence in a Star WARS film, particularly one being sold as a true war film.

And anyone who whines about the cast diversity has automatically exposed themselves as the type of person who I'd have no interest in hearing from on ANY topic.

 

The obvious difference between the two films is the tone. For example BB8 just wouldn't have worked in Rogue One and vice versa with K2. I like Force Awakens, but the characters haven't really grown on me, yet. But its part one of the trilogy, so there's plenty to go in the story for me to become truly invested in them. Rogue One wasn't afforded that luxury. It had just over two hours to make you feel a genuine sense of sorrow as each of the protagonists perished for the whole thing to actually work. And for me it very much accomplished that.

 

I liked TFA & R1 a lot but I do see R1 holding up over time better than Force Awakens.

On first watching R1 my initial thoughts were 'wow, this is different' but I didn't walk out feeling anything but happy with it, whereas with TFA I remember being annoyed as hell at Starkiller Base/Trench Run as that was on my list of things when making a new SW film never to do - another Death Star. I couldn't believe they did it. That was annoying as the first half of TFA is superb. A year later I do see TFA as a very safe film, perhaps this was intended but my big worry is they don't have an overall coherent plan for where they are going with it.

Overall, LFL & the Mouse must be very happy to have kicked off with 2 films well received on RT, and more importantly high 80's in terms of audience score. Especially as they are so different in tone.

I think the Han Solo movie will give a better indication as to where these Anthology movies are going and how succesful they can be though. R1 is so connected to the original trilogy, it is basically Episode 3.9.