Jump to content

SPOILER TALK: Rogue One by Gareth Edwards


Jay

Recommended Posts

The more I think about Rogue One, the more I like it.

 

The more I think about Force Awakens, the less I like it.

I guess I like a resolved story. I'm getting tired of entire franchises being set up and not resolved for 50 films so that the studio can make money. Rogue One was a solo story that started and ended itself. This whole, "join us next time to find out what any of this is about" is annoying to me. Rogue one was simple. It ended. I thank them for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both films don't really hold up all that well once you really start thinking about them. But they do succeed in providing solid entertainment, which means they successfully do their job as Star Wars films. I just happen to think TFA has more substance than Rogue One.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stefancos said:

It's only a solo outing because the story is continued in a film made decades ago. It actually isn't a resolved story at all.

 

 

The point was to steal the plans to the death star. They did. Story resolved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pretty much agree with the article as well. Especially this part:

Quote

Ultimately, neither film is preposterously good, but both are a nice return to form for the Star Wars franchise. I hope Episode VIII blows them both out of the water, with a more original plot than Episode VII but all its heart and verve.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

The problem with Rogue One is that it seems Disney have made the same mistake Lucas did in the Prequels, that is to say put vital information and character development in other media (novels, comic books, etc. In this case, it's the novel called Catalyst, apparently, (plus, regarding Saw Gerrera, the Rebels cartoon)) and thus didn't bother including any of that in the film (because they just assume you read the novel, or that you'll read it if you want to know more). It simply isn't a good way to make movies. Don't tell your audience: "Well, we didn't have time to include character development and more story info in the film in 2 hours, so just buy the comic books and the video games and the underwears if you want the complete picture..."

 

 

What?

All new films are going to rely onto published canon, and the simplest things explained outside the films. TFA was new...but for EPVIII and IX many things will have been published to they will take things from there...

 

IE: Republic capital is not coruscant, that info comes from the books...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stefancos said:

I found Ep 7 far more involving than Rogue One. Which only point seems to be to get to ANH. And by the time it does, it's already forgotten about the characters who were in this film.

 

What a hollow, empty, by the numbers affair, now I come to think of it.

 

The more I think about it, the more I honestly believe it makes sense for this film. It's not a standalone affair, but a direct lead up to Ep 4, and that's how it works. As a standalone film, it would need characters, but for a sort of prelude which everyone involved in the main story arc only know as a second hand story, I really think strong characters would have given it too much of an identity of its own. Too much weight on what it isn't, at the expense of what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

The more I think about it, the more I honestly believe it makes sense for this film. It's not a standalone affair, but a direct lead up to Ep 4, and that's how it works. As a standalone film, it would need characters, but for a sort of prelude which everyone involved in the main story arc only know as a second hand story, I really think strong characters would have given it too much of an identity of its own. Too much weight on what it isn't, at the expense of what it is.

 

Mm I disagree, I think that if this movie had really succeeded in making me feel the tragedy of the Rogue One ensemble, then it would have only enhanced the ending of ANH. It would break my heart to go back and see their story glossed over in the original film, and there would be this extra feeling that Luke et al just don't understand because they weren't there. It would have transformed the second hand prelude into a new emotional context for me and it would have added an extra punch to the Death Star's destruction. I wouldn't just be thrilled for Luke's personal victory, I'd also be thinking of Jyn and Cassian and my new favorite characters who went down in another great movie that I loved to see this thing destroyed.

 

As it is, I just don't really care that much about these people and therefore am not sure why I needed to see the story told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't been around much lately (too busy starting a new business), but after seeing R1 last night I knew I'd be back here today to talk about it. (Where else can I go...?)

 

I've read through everyone else's posts, and having seen anything surprising. I figured this one would provoke a lot of diverse reactions (just like TFA did). My reaction? The long and the short of it is that I loved this movie. It was a Star Wars film—in the classic, great sense—which means it was designed to provide a cinematic thrill, and not to stand up as a cinematic masterpiece. While no one would claim it did the latter, I felt it certainly lived up to the former. 

 

Ironically (and without any forethought or intention toward R1), we watched ANH a couple of weeks ago. It was the second time my 9-year-old daughter had seen it. I'm glad we did, because she went into this one with important details fresh in her mind. So did I—though there wasn't much chance I'd forget anything about the OT when it came down to it. I thought they did a great job setting up the story for ANH, and unlike some folks around here, I thought it was a story that deserved to be told. From that point of view, I thought they told it very well, too. This was SW from a very different point of view, not remembered through the gossamer veil of mythology but seen through the eyes of those who were in the trenches, fighting the battles that really made the Rebellion what it was. The dark, gritty nature of it fit the subject matter very well. It's one thing to see the Empire as the dark and evil co-equal of the legendary characters of light and good. It's another thing entirely to see it from the perspective of the common folk living under its relentless thumb. We've never really gotten a good look at that before, and it was about time we did.

 

I can understand why some people are criticizing the lack of deeper characterization here. It would've been nice to know a bit more about Jyn's missing years, why she was a prisoner in an Imperial labor camp, that sort of thing. But to a certain degree all that misses the point. We read biographies and watch documentaries about great historical figures who led the masses in conflicts like the first two World Wars, but we rarely learn much in detail about those who were on the front lines. The generals get the glory, but the grunts get the job done. That's how it's always been, and to shift that paradigm here would've felt somehow out-of-place. This was the Saving Private Ryan of the SW saga. We didn't know a lot about those guys either—hell, they didn't know a lot about each other, as evidenced in their pool to guess what their Captain had done before the war. They were joined by a common purpose, and that was enough both to give them an underpinning of character and elevate that character in our eyes.

 

It was the same here, and for me that served to fill in most of the gaps the shallow characterizations couldn't. That, and another factor that hasn't been mentioned yet, but made a powerful impact on me as the story unfolded: this was a story about rebels. Rebels rebel—not always just against the law, or against tyranny, but (quite often) against social norms, against morality, and against each other. Most of these people weren't just criminals in the eyes of the Empire, but would've been criminals in the days of the Old (or New) Republic as well. The fractured relationships between former military and political figures and the common rabble was made perfectly believable here . . . and I wound up more invested in the characters because they chose to rebel against the Empire and the Rebellion in a final attempt to legitimize themselves, if only in their own eyes. 

 

And frankly, I didn't need a ton of backstory or quirky quirks in order to take pleasure in watching Chirrut and Baze do their thing. I got the gist of it. There were times when the vagueness actually added to the effect. Was Chirrut Force-sensitive? Probably, but (unlike the prequels and most other galumphing failures) the movie doesn't tell us outright. It's much more interesting that we're left to guess, especially when Chirrut walks across the open space to the Master Switch and never gets hit by enemy fire. Luck? Typical stormtrooper's aim? Or . . . was the Force really with him, as he was with it, for those vital few moments? I don't know—and I'm better off not knowing.

 

For all these reasons, I felt for these characters, and was impacted by their deaths. This was a film about the sacrifices necessary to save the galaxy and raise Luke, Han, and Leia to the status of legends. Even if we didn't know everything about each of these people's lives . . . they each had lives, and considered them worth living, and in the end considered them worth giving for a greater cause. You could see it in their eyes, too, especially when they looked at one another. Even if it didn't matter to some members of the audience, it mattered to them, and that was enough for me.

 

Those are some of the big thought behind why I thought the movie worked. Here are some other, randomized inklings:

 

- I know we've come to expect great effects from this franchise, but damn. This may be the best-looking space battle movie of all time. And it was great to get another huge battle of that type in this saga. TFA didn't really come through with that. The Resistance attack on the Starkiller base did its due diligence, but didn't really blaze new ground. This one did, and big time. And there were other fantastic touches, too. Like the Star Destroyer hanging over the city of Jedha—a striking visual representation of the Empire's dominance. Great stuff.

 

- Same goes for the straight-up action sequences. Frankly, that's something they've been trying to get right again almost since the first movie back in '77. This felt like the first SW movie in a long time that I would've loved to play out as a kid on our school playground, particularly everything that happened on the ground (and in the tower) during the last battle sequence. (Anyone else notice how Disney made sure the climactic battle took place in Florida, so they could more easily weave it into the Disneyworld experience. . . ?)

 

- The Death Star used to seem pretty frightening for all its planet-destroying power. But somehow, it became even more frightening as a weapon that could wipe out an area the size of a small continent. Aside from Ben's lament, we couldn't really connect with all the lives lost on Alderaan aside from an abstract understanding. But creating an explosion that tears up that much real estate, sending a good portion of it all the way up into orbit . . . that touches on old nuclear fears, and that makes it more harrowing. All the effects involving the Death Star, from its construction to its appearance around hapless worlds, was masterful as well.

 

- I enjoyed almost every Easter egg they threw in as a connection to the OT. I was okay with the appearance of the cantina duo (though they could've managed something a bit less obvious, I think). I cheered outright at the sight of Red and Gold Leaders, which may have been the most sensible inclusion in the film, given that they're just days away from the attack on the Death Star. (If they could swing that, though, why couldn't they fit Biggs and Wedge in, too?) I also saw the nod-and-wink at the death of Red Five, leaving an opening for Luke to occupy. I knew we'd see C-3PO and R2, but I figured it would be in a much more appropriate place—at the end, aboard the blockade runner, not as a stupid throwaway back at the Yavin base. 

 

- Yes, Vader's scene at the end is pure awesome. I liked both his appearances, actually (and was thanking God that James Earl Jones is still around to give him his voice). Appropriate, without being overdone.

 

- I was fine with the other villain, Krennic. Just like this was a story about the lower class of freedom fighters, we got a somewhat lower class of villain. Not everyone can be a Darth Vader or Palpatine. How ridiculous would the Empire seem if every ranking officer were a supervillain?

 

- I give Gia's score a passing grade overall. He's no Williams, of course . . . but then, who is? He did all right with the Imperialish, militaryish stuff, especially in transitional shots between and in setting up scenes. I was a little confused as to why he didn't just fall back on the original themes more often, though. I mean, it's not like anyone (no one sensible, anyway) is going to charge him with plagiarism for using the Force and Rebel themes in appropriate moments, right? The canvas is already set. We didn't need a brand-new filmography for this one. Just go with what works. 

 

I will say, though, that the greatest musical choice came at the moment when the wreckage of the Star Destroyers hurtled down through the shield gate. When a lot of other composers would've blared a triumphant fanfare, Gia went quiet, almost reverent. It was almost as if it reflected a whisper that said, "We win." Gave me chills.

 

 

Not everything was perfect, of course. Far from it. I had my fair share of nitpicks, too:

 

- I'll side with most everyone when it comes to the first third or so of the movie. I may not need a lot of backstory, but please try to keep the proceedings at least halfway clear. The constant jumping around while juggling at least three separate story threads was very much not in keeping with classic SW style, which favors straightforward and clear storytelling. 

 

- No one else seems to have picked up on a rather obvious connection: Now we know who Supreme Leader Snoke really is. Turns out the shot just before the explosion of the Death Star in ANH is a feint. Grand Moff Tarkin survived, became Force-proficient, and later assumed control of the First Order and took on Kylo Ren as an apprentice. I mean, isn't it obvious? Snoke is just an appropriately older version of Tarkin (probably lost his hair escaping from the Death Star). Aside from that, they look exactly alike. I suppose one could argue that it could be because they're both badly-rendered CGI characters, but . . . I dunno, I'm fairly certain. . . .

 

No, I'm not really that stupid. It's my way of saying the valley called, and they still can't find their can. Tarkin's rendering, while a noble attempt, was still creepily inhuman, and that kind of thing has become too much of a distraction in movies that would do better without them. I could've handled the few seconds of Leia at the end, but tacked on to the Tarkin thing, it just annoyed me further. (On the other hand, I thought they did a much better job rendering Bail Organa. He seemed completely realistic. Completely lifeli—what? Jimmy Smits is still around? Oh. Sorry. Hard to tell anymore.)

 

- And speaking of Leia: yeah, that was another bad moment. The Leia Organa of ANH was a stiff-backed, strong-willed woman, not a grinning little girl. I agree that it's baffling how the movie ended so abruptly, and on such an off-note, when it would've been so easy to have them transmit the data to her ship (headed for a rendezvous with Obi-Wan Kenobi on Tatooine), and then, just before arriving there, as a Star Destroyer comes out of hyperspace on their heels, show her in just as brief a moment furrowing her brow and telling the crew to get ready for battle. Much more in keeping with both this movie and ANH.

 

- And on that note: I could've done with either an abrupt start or finish, but getting them both just made the director look ham-handed. This isn't rocket science.

 

- Forest Whittaker should no longer be allowed to appear in science fiction movies. Ever. He could've done his penance for Battlefield Earth here, but instead just doubled down on the same thing. Bizarre character that had no need to be bizarre, doing bizarre things that didn't need to be done and made no sense. For instance: what was with the scene where that creature "interrogates" the Imperial pilot? Why go through all that rigmarole, talking about how it has the effect of driving people crazy, and then not have it drive the guy crazy? Stupid.

 

 

It looks like my nitpicks outnumber my kudos, but that's really not the case. I spent most of the movie—and especially the last 45 minutes or so—with a fixed smile on my face, reveling in the Star Wars milieu, an activity I will never tire of experiencing, especially when it's done right. Overall, Rogue One did it right. I'm honestly at a toss-up as to whether I liked it better than TFA. It wasn't quite as epic, and didn't quite hit some of the higher notes that J.J. was able to pull off in his version (as he does so well). But it also didn't have any of the patently puerile silliness (like the Rathtars) that J.J. can never seem to resist tossing in, and managed to avoid any overwhelming plot or device dilemmas (like the total inconceivability of the Starkiller base). It was different, and as a different thing, it was in many ways better . . . but it was still different, and as a different thing, couldn't measure up in all the same ways. 

 

Whatever. I've already given it too much thought. I had great fun, and for that, this gets a solid 8 out of 10 from me.

 

 

On 12/16/2016 at 0:37 PM, Stefancos said:

Actually the first time we have ever seen a normal Star Destoyer...destroyed.

 

You're wrong. Aside from the Executor slamming into the Death Star, we have seen one destroyed—or the beginning of its destruction, anyway. At the moment when Ackbar is actually telling the pilots to focus their attack on "that Super Star Destroyer," if you look in the background behind him, you'll see another Destroyer starting to explode from its middle section. (I'm surprised that I'm the only one who's mentioned that—and I can't believe I'm the only one who's ever seen it.)

 

 

On 12/16/2016 at 1:29 PM, leeallen01 said:

I swear that first shot of that Star Destroyer in front of the Death Star looked like lego. It couldn't have been digital. It was so damn beautiful and real.

 

Actually . . . that was one moment that didn't work for me, precisely because it looked exactly like it was made of Legos. It was so white, so sharp, so bright, that it wound up looking completely fake. The Destroyers in the OT always had that same air of slight dinginess that pervaded the whole look of the galaxy, which made them look more realistic. I didn't like the too-"clean" look of the Imperial ships in this movie.

 

 

On 12/16/2016 at 3:59 PM, Daniel Clamp said:

This is the first SW movie where I felt on-edge because it was more suspenseful than any previous film in the series.

 

Edwards (or whoever the hell ghost directed most of this) knows how to build momentum and hold your attention.

 

I completely agree. I knew they were going to get the plans, and that they all had to die at the end . . . so why was I wearing out the edge of my seat? At one point, I openly smiled at the thought of how intense it was, and silently acknowledged the filmmakers' skill.

 

 

On 12/17/2016 at 11:46 AM, leeallen01 said:

Question: When the Death Star fired on the Imperial archive base, did it miss? I know they wanted to destroy their own base to stop the rebels getting the plans, and also a kind of personal bitch fight between Tarkin and Krennic, where Tarkin naturally knew he was there and wanted him dead so he has no competition for 'Commander of the Death Star,' but did the Death Star really miss its target? Or did Tarkin and the crew think that it would look prettier being destroyed with a blast wave of water?

 

I figured they were aiming for the dish on the tower in order to stop the transmission immediately, knowing that it would also destroy the base collaterally. 

 

 

On 12/19/2016 at 6:15 AM, Incanus said:

 

392044839_ec0e2c083a.jpg

 

 

You could stop Vader's lightsaber with those cheekbones.

 

 

On 12/19/2016 at 7:37 AM, Mr. Breathmask said:

 

Also, how did they end up in Mos Eisley if they were on Jeddha only a few hours (?) before it got blown to kingdom come?

 

My wife asked the same thing. I reminded her they'd had enough time to transport the Rebel captives several miles away and keep them imprisoned for awhile—plenty of time for those two to saunter back to their ship and start heading for Tatooine.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Biggs hadn't joined the Rebellion yet at the beginning of ANH.

 

Seems to me the beginning of ANH (the battle above Tatooine) happens roughly two or three days before the attack on the Death Star (unless they spend days or weeks in hyperspace between locations). Biggs must've gotten his application approved and fast-tracked to pilot status in a hurry. 

 

Of course, I'm sure you're referencing collateral material here. Where did you come by that info? Just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, leeallen01 said:

While I agree that Rey was unknown for a reason, and her little stuff scavenging was great (the best part of the film was her scenes on Jakku), and I agree that Jyn had limited story so it lessened the emotional impact, but Rogue One is about a handful of new characters, and it was a war film, so it is hard to dedicate such time to one character without slowing it down even more. I thought there was a lot of emotion though, for me anyway, in those scenes with her hologram dad, which had more emotion and class than Han Solo's death, which was stale and very poorly done. But remember that Rey had that time to get to know her quirks better, because the film was all about her. I know nothing about Poe, or Finn. I know more about Cassian from that one speech he did about being in the resistance since he was a kid, fighting his entire life. In force awakens, they made sure to get you emotionally invested in the characters more because they had the time, with far less action, and those characters are going to be carried throughout 3 films at least, but Rogue One is a war film where everyone dies, so dedicating the first hour to slow, backstory and getting to know 6 or 7 characters completely, would have been so pointless with them just dying 5 minutes later.

 

Uh... so filmmakers shouldn't bother developing characters that die later in the film, because it's "pointless"? The whole point of storytelling is creating characters we care about and root for, especially in a story where they all die at the end. That way, it's even more upsetting and affecting when it happens.

 

In my eyes, the reason TFA works more successfully than R1 is because Abrams is leagues beyond Edwards so far as creating empathetic characters who we actually care about. I don't really care about anyone in Rogue One, especially Jyn (who is a very bland and lifeless protagonist). Edwards does have the edge over Abrams with his cinematic visuals, but I'll take quality storytelling and relatable characters over nice visuals.

 

So I don't think there was any hypocrisy in the RLM review (though I think they were being overly harsh on the film). The point they were making is that both new films lay on some heavy nostalgia and fan service, but the reason one film is superior to the other is that you actually care about the characters in TFA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The movie was expectedly a non-event, clumsily paced and so on, but one thing that bothered the nitpicker in me to no end was how anachronistic some things were: either i misremember or the big frog guy in ROTJ said attacking a star destroyer with rebel ships would be a sure suicide mission - but here they easily destroy a whole fleet? Either way, it just didn't seem right for the small-scale rebellion pre-SW to cause such havoc on huge empire forces. An impression you couldn't have after seeing SW.

 

Also, the AT-AT's were much harder to bear down in ESB - again, why could they so easily shoot them down years earlier? 

 

The movie had ONE cool scene and that was the Vader killing spree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cared about the characters in Rogue One.

 

However, I didn't care one bit about Han's death in Force Awakens. He was a beloved character of many decades, yet myself, and everyone I know who saw it said they didn't feel anything when he died. It was poorly done and ridiculously predictable. That tells me the handling of the characters (and arguably the most memorable and loved character in Star Wars history) was bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, publicist said:

The movie was expectedly a non-event, clumsily paced and so on, but one thing that bothered the nitpicker in me to no end was how anachronistic some things were: either i misremember or the big frog guy in ROTJ said attacking a star destroyer with rebel ships would be a sure suicide mission - but here they easily destroy a whole fleet? Either way, it just didn't seem right for the small-scale rebellion pre-SW to cause such havoc on huge empire forces. An impression you couldn't have after seeing SW.

 

I don't think they "destroyed the whole fleet" here. They used some sort of electrical weapon on one, depriving it of power, then just plain bull-pushed it into the second one. That's not too over the top in terms of believability. (Not nearly as much as the idea that a small fighter crashing into one room aboard a ship the size of a whole city could render said ship completely immobile—and even if it did, what would send it suddenly out of control and crashing into the Death Star? Nonsense.)

 

 

10 minutes ago, publicist said:

Also, the AT-AT's were much harder to bear down in ESB - again, why could they so easily shoot them down years earlier? 

 

I did notice that. It undermines the menace of the Empire a bit when you present AT-ATs seemingly made of aluminum foil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Uni said:

 

I don't think they "destroyed the whole fleet" here. They used some sort of electrical weapon on one, depriving it of power, then just plain bull-pushed it into the second one. That's not too over the top in terms of believability. (Not nearly as much as the idea that a small fighter crashing into one room aboard a ship the size of a whole city could render said ship completely immobile—and even if it did, what would send it suddenly out of control and crashing into the Death Star? Nonsense.)

 

It's about scale: of course the movies present rubbish incidents if taken at face value but going by the original movies and even the prequels (do they kill these huge ships in ROTS? I think not) do not suggest that an impotent rebel alliance could bring about such damage to those huge imperial carriers. It looked just...wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The actors had to struggle - bad exposition galore, and ill-deserved pathos that maybe only Alec Guinness, John Gielgud or Ralph Richardson could have have saved on a very good day but yeah, it was mostly bad. 

 

The ugly truth, at least seeing the mostly good notices and the positive reactions from a lot of board members here: this kind of shoddy dramatic moviemaking is enough for most to invest even in a second ticket or blu ray so there is not much reason for them to make these things better (not with louder explosions but plain better dramatic writing, Lawrence Kasdan probably agrees now that he's out). 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, except . . . again, that's always been the case with Star Wars. While watching ANH a couple of weeks ago, at one point my wife—who also grew up with the franchise and is as much a fan as I am—said, "This is like watching a high school play!" Dialogue and acting have never been the highlights of these movies. Kasdan gave them what life they had (the prequels demonstrated how cringeworthy Lucas's efforts are without him), but ultimately even he only did so much. These movies have always represented the top of the 70s sci-fi heap, which is not exactly dramatic cinema at its finest. They're fun popcorn fare. When you try to wring higher purpose and quality out of them, they don't stand much chance of holding up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't argue that point, but they were better ARCHETYPES, if you get my drift. Rogue One was just a jumbled mess of badly realized 'dramatic' scenes limping to a finish line, SW at least had clearly delineated characters and motivations. 

 

It worked because of those archetypes and myths it drew from, but what can Rogue One claim to have in its favour? (if we discount endless exposition of remote planets and strategic bases only the fanboys ever heard of as a sound dramatic device)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought it was interesting that Lucasfilm invited those mummy bloggers to check out the pre-release presentation. Looks like they do plenty of market research.

 

Also nice to have at least one review call out the cynical Chinese market exercise for what it is. I didn't mind the Force sensitive character but there really was no story purpose for either character to exist -- you could take them out of the film and it would make no difference to the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, publicist said:

I wouldn't argue that point, but they were better ARCHETYPES, if you get my drift.

 

I do. For all that Lucas can't grasp when it comes to real-time character interaction, he always did have a mind for the bigger-picture mythological ramifications. Star Wars was, after all, modeled closely after Joseph Campbell's broader interpretations of myth and legend, and that's one of the elements that gives the OT it's greatest strength. R1 wasn't about that level of mythology (aside from Chirrut's references), and so couldn't draw from that same well of strength. It had to fill in those gaps with something else, and I agree that it wasn't entirely successful in doing so. 

 

It's interesting—it sounds like I'm debating these points, but I'm really not. Just discussing them. I had a helluva great time watching this movie, but I don't in any way feel the need to defend it. If people didn't connect with it the way I did, I can understand their frustrations much better than I might with other movies I consider to be worthy cinematic experiences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider myself not the core audience, but with marketing geared massively towards 10-14 year olds i ask myself: is that the core audience? Because Rogue One wasn't a film i expressly would wish my kid to see, it was rather ugly in a moral sense.

 

It's a - considering time and resources spent - rather miniscule result for people who need their SW fix once in a while but god knows, films with much less resources and talent behind them yielded much better made movies. And i give Edwards benefit of the doubt here, his original version might have been on to something but we probably never know what went on there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Uni said:

- And speaking of Leia: yeah, that was another bad moment. The Leia Organa of ANH was a stiff-backed, strong-willed woman, not a grinning little girl. I agree that it's baffling how the movie ended so abruptly, and on such an off-note, when it would've been so easy to have them transmit the data to her ship (headed for a rendezvous with Obi-Wan Kenobi on Tatooine), and then, just before arriving there, as a Star Destroyer comes out of hyperspace on their heels, show her in just as brief a moment furrowing her brow and telling the crew to get ready for battle. Much more in keeping with both this movie and ANH.

Leia showed some hopefulness here:

Excuse the stupid question but Leia's "father" is Bale Organa who adopted her and died half way through ANH at the destruction of Alderaan, right?  Not the old rebel guy who retrieved the data.  Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, karelm said:

Leia showed some hopefulness here:

Excuse the stupid question but Leia's "father" is Bale Organa who adopted her and died half way through ANH at the destruction of Alderaan, right?  Not the old rebel guy who retrieved the data.  Oh well.

Yeah..you didnt know before now??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something confuses me.

 

So the rebels stole the plans, got them to Leia, who was then going to take them to her dad on Alderaan? Why not just go to the rebel base? And if they couldn't because they were being pursued by Vader, then why go to Tattooine? Were they on their way to Alderaan, and their ship broke and they happened to be over tattooine?

 

Also, Vader literally watched the Tantive IV escape with the plans, but when he confronts Leia, she says that they were on a diplomatic mission to Alderaan. Who does she think she's fooling? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, leeallen01 said:

Something confuses me.

 

So the rebels stole the plans, got them to Leia, who was then going to take them to her dad on Alderaan? Why not just go to the rebel base? And if they couldn't because they were being pursued by Vader, then why go to Tattooine? Were they on their way to Alderaan, and their ship broke and they happened to be over tattooine?

 

Also, Vader literally watched the Tantive IV escape with the plans, but when he confronts Leia, she says that they were on a diplomatic mission to Alderaan. Who does she think she's fooling? 

 

What was she going to say? Well Darth, you caught me. Follow me and I'll give you the plans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016-12-16 at 6:59 AM, Luke Skywalker said:

OK, leia is lying (she ever was), but she could have done a better excuse, since now she is leaving the battle and she knows she has been seen. One could say that she think she went out without being seen, but they should have adressed that in the film. Big explosion or something that blinded Vader or whatever and definately no other imperial ship to report...

 

 

 I think Leia does not know Vader saw the blockade runner leave.

 

And Vader might not have initiated the persuit with the star destroyer right away. He might have waited to see where she was going or caught up with her a couple of hours later

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, leeallen01 said:

Something confuses me.

 

So the rebels stole the plans, got them to Leia, who was then going to take them to her dad on Alderaan? Why not just go to the rebel base? And if they couldn't because they were being pursued by Vader, then why go to Tattooine? Were they on their way to Alderaan, and their ship broke and they happened to be over tattooine?

 

Also, Vader literally watched the Tantive IV escape with the plans, but when he confronts Leia, she says that they were on a diplomatic mission to Alderaan. Who does she think she's fooling? 

Leia was sent to Tatooine to bring Kenobi (and the supposed fully trained Luke*) to Alderaan in order to help the rebels. This was undercover, officially it was a diplomatic mission.

 

Supposedly she got transmitted the death star plans during the voyage, and since they arrived to tattoine and discovered by Vader's ship, she sent a message with R2 to Kenobi so he could bring the plans to his father. (she wouldnt risk the rebel base location in one message...though she marked Alderaan with shinning bright 'X'...)

 

And then Rogue one came.

 

*Due to Owen Lars interference, Luke was not trained as planned. in ANH Obi wan says he is too old, and that Luke is the one the princess need

4 minutes ago, king mark said:

 I think Leia does not know Vader saw the blockade runner leave.

 

And Vader might not have initiated the persuit with the star destroyer right away. He might have waited to see where she was going or caught up with her a couple of hours later

Leia must have been with the fleet while his father contacted her to go to tattoine...and her ship didnt had time to get out of the cruiser.

That could be the explanation... But makes no sense as she was brought to a suicide attack into an imperial station. She is a senator, and therefore cannot risk being seen with the rebels. Her ship's ID would be shouting "Alderaan senator" loudly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, leeallen01 said:

Something confuses me.

 

So the rebels stole the plans, got them to Leia, who was then going to take them to her dad on Alderaan? Why not just go to the rebel base? And if they couldn't because they were being pursued by Vader, then why go to Tattooine? Were they on their way to Alderaan, and their ship broke and they happened to be over tattooine?

 

Also, Vader literally watched the Tantive IV escape with the plans, but when he confronts Leia, she says that they were on a diplomatic mission to Alderaan. Who does she think she's fooling? 

 

The way the joined the ending of Rogue One with the beginning of SW isnt quite right.

It's the least of the films problems though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.