Movies: Star Wars: Rogue One Part II Release date Dec 14th

[ResilientBeast]

I actually liked this more than The Force Awakens....

Not exactly an unpopular opinion

I disagree, The Force Awakens is so watchable for me while after two showings of Rogue One I had difficulties paying attention till the third act.

 

[Warden of the North]

Rogue One kinda shows they have the balls to do whatever makes sense for the movie if it'll make them money.

But my hope is that they wouldn't do something like that. That's not Star Wars. Star Wars has always been optimistic and positive even with serious and grim things like the Empire or Anakin's fall. I said in the Rebels thread that Rogue One filled the niche of grittier Star Wars tale, and now I've had my fill of that. I don't want the franchise to go dark when that's never been what it's about on the grander scale

I would think Ep8, much like ESB, is going to be pretty dark.

 

[Jussi]

Do you guys think Disney would have the balls to have the Dark Side prevail at end of Episode 9?

I always felt it would be interesting to have the Dark Side triumph in end

And maybe afterwards cinema audiences could go laugh at fat/ugly/poor people, admit that evil always wins because good is dumb and complete the heel turn for the human race?

 

[The Nemesis]

I would think Ep8, much like ESB, is going to be pretty dark.

Dark yes, but it's in service of setting up for a more optimistic ending. I'm OK with that. I would be less OK with trying to make things morally gray or ending the trilogy on a downbeat note because that's never been Star Wars (the prequel trilogy ended that way, but only because we knew it was to be followed by the original movies)

 

[The Nemesis]

And maybe afterwards cinema audiences could go laugh at fat/ugly/poor people, admit that evil always wins because good is dumb and complete the heel turn for the human race?

 

[Roughneck]

I would think Ep8, much like ESB, is going to be pretty dark.

Rey is going to lose a hand, the force wills it!

 

[RandV]

TFA grabbed the audience because of the old characters returning to the franchise. Leia, Chewbacca and Han Solo are recognized by everyone. Rogue One has Bail Organa, Mon Mothma, Tarkin and a few moments of Vader. The difference is that the characters in TFA were the main protagonists in the OT, while the R1 characters weren't.

TFA was also the first movie to come out in 10 years and people were going to love it either way. TFA has that in common with TPM (Not that it is as bad as TPM, but that it gets credit because it fills a desire among fans)

While Han/Luke/Chewie/Leia were certainly a huge draw in TFA, but the new cast as well made themselves a great introduction to the series and will be their own draw going forward. Much moreso than Rogue One, because... well you know.

Anyways, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but I have a hard time understanding why some people are so bothered by a 'lack of originality'. TFA had similar elements to ANH yes, but I mean this isn't the video game industry here these two movies are 39 years apart.

Perhaps Avatar is a better example of this. Yeah it's basically Dances with Wolves/Pocahontos, but those movies came out 15-20 years ago and who would even give a **** about them today? We have so much entertainment out there that nearly everything is going to have similar elements to something else. Even a lot of Shakespeare's work, if I understand this correctly, was written off of existing materials - he just told the stories better than anyone else.

I don't mean to call anyone out here but it feels like some people perceive this sort of thing as 'lazy' from the film creators and use that perception to detract from their enjoyment of the film.

 

[Roughneck]

TFA definitely played on some nostalgia but it did a pretty amazing job at setting up new characters for us to care about.

Rogue One had throwaway characters which is a shame because there wa clearly a lot of potential to build them up to make their loss that much more impactful. At the end of the day that is what makes Star Wars great: that you're on this adventure with these characters, not just the adventure itself.

I will be all too comfortable skipping he first half or two-thirds of Rogue One, while watching the first scenes of Finn and Poe, day and the life of Rey, Finn and Rey learning about Luke,etc are the best parts of TFA.

 

[Shareefruck]

While the main characters of TFA stand out more and were a bigger draw, I personally felt that this was mostly on a superficial celebrity/caricature-ish level-- Daisy Ridley was a new attractive face, and her character was just a do-no-wrong super-hero Mary-Sue, whereas Boyega was almost a bumbling comedic sidekick. They leap off the screen far more than the Rogue One characters, but they were also pretty boring overall, and oddly enough, I personally found the non-descript anonymous quality of the Rogue One characters refreshingly grounded and preferrable. It felt more real and like the plight of the rebels as a whole were the real star of the show rather than the individual characters, and it didn't feel nearly as trope-y and manipulative. Same thing with the more normal, non-theatrical, almost-generic-foot-soldier-like villains. I actually LIKED that and found it compelling. Now, I agree that this whole approach is very un-Star-Wars-like, which is probably partly why fans of the franchise don't like it, but I was all for that change.

This is of course, excluding the two Asian characters, who I completely concede were pointless, out of place shoe-horns who had poor performances and lame roles to work with. I also thought Whitaker was distractingly awful.

I would not have wanted them to replace any of the leads, supporting cast, and villains with the types of cartoonish personalities we got in TFA, though. The overall structure and makeup of Rogue One was refreshing and awesome, IMO-- there were just some imperfections here and there that I didn't like, especially in the first half.

 

[RandV]

While the main characters of TFA stand out more and were a bigger draw, I personally felt that this was mostly on a superficial celebrity/caricature-ish level-- Daisy Ridley was a new attractive face, and her character was just a do-no-wrong super-hero Mary-Sue, whereas Boyega was almost a bumbling comedic sidekick. They leap off the screen far more than the Rogue One characters, but oddly enough, I personally found the non-descript blandness of the Rogue One characters refreshingly grounded. It felt more real and like the rebels as a whole were the star of the show rather than the individual characters, and I didn't feel like I was being manipulated as much. Other than the two Asian characters, who I completely concede were pointless, out of place shoe-horns who had poor performances and lame roles to work with. I also thought Whitaker was distractingly awful.

Like someone else said Rogue One was more about the grunt foot soldiers of the rebellion, and that was nice for a change. I don't think it's fair to write off Daisy Ridley in that manner, because "do-no-wrong super-hero Mary-Sue" is basically the definition of a Jedi.

Jedi or not anyone who's been a force adept in the Star Wars universe has been able to do incredible things.

 

[Shareefruck]

Like someone else said Rogue One was more about the grunt foot soldiers of the rebellion, and that was nice for a change. I don't think it's fair to write off Daisy Ridley in that manner, because "do-no-wrong super-hero Mary-Sue" is basically the definition of a Jedi.

Jedi or not anyone who's been a force adept in the Star Wars universe has been able to do incredible things.

I agree, and it's something that can be lobbed at someone like Luke Skywalker too, and it works for the masses, and this type of character stands out more and seems well defined, but it's also a very formulaic stereotype that I find boring, uninteresting, and doesn't really take a maverick to play. Star Wars as a franchise makes its bread and butter off that type of thing (although it did it far better and with more electrifying charisma in the OT, with Solo, Leia, and Vader), and obviously TFA respects that tradition far more than Rogue One does. But I still preferred the latter approach and execution in these two recent examples.

I'm not saying Daisy Ridley was awful or ruined the movies or anything like that-- she was fine and did exactly what was asked of her, but she wasn't exactly oozing charisma and it wasn't anything worth noting over anyone else who was fine, IMO.

I would take the three generic footsoldier leads/villains in Rogue One over the three more stereotypically marketable leads/villains of The Force Awakens. I just don't agree that the latter were superior. They're more viable leading-man/woman draws, but that doesn't make them better than the characters in a movie that wasn't really about leading man/woman draws. I would actually argue that the leads in Rogue One were better actors whereas the TFA leads had this deer-in-the-head-lights "Hey look at us! We're fun people who got to be in a movie!" quality to them.

 

[Roughneck]

Who cares who the better actors were? What matters is the characters. Ewan MacGregor and Samuel L. Jackson and Natalie Portman are better actors than Hamill, Fisher and Ford, but their characters sucked.

Rey and Finn and even Poe are better characters than what we saw in Rogue One, that's all that matters.

 

[Shareefruck]

Who cares who the better actors were? What matters is the characters. Ewan MacGregor and Samuel L. Jackson and Natalie Portman are better actors than Hamill, Fisher and Ford, but their characters sucked.

Rey and Finn and even Poe are better characters than what we saw in Rogue One, that's all that matters.

I agree, what matters is how effective the character is for the movie, and everything else is completely worthless unless it positively contributes to that overall effect..... But I happen to think that the Rogue One characters were more effective than The Force Awakens characters, and groundedness (and consequently, immersive acting ability) played a role in that.

I think that analogy is terrible, though. MacGregor, Jackson and Portman might be better actors in general, but they did not have better acting than Hamill, Fisher, or Ford in the Star Wars movies, IMO. In fact, their performances kind of outright sucked (admittedly, largely because they had nothing to work with)

The roles in Rogue One were more undefined and less dynamic than in TFA, but in my opinion, they played those qualities better, and those qualities improved the overall movie more.

 

[Roughneck]

I agree, what matters is how effective the character is for the movie, and everything else is completely worthless unless it positively contributes to that overall effect..... But I happen to think that the Rogue One characters were more effective than The Force Awakens characters, and groundedness (and consequently, immersive acting ability) played a role in that.

I think that analogy is terrible, though. Ewan MacGregor, Samuel L. Jackson and Natalie Portman might be better actors in general, but they did not have better acting than Hamill, Fisher, or Ford in the Star Wars movies, IMO. In fact, their performances kind of outright sucked (admittedly, largely because they had nothing to work with)

The roles in Rogue One were more undefined, benign, and less dynamic than in TFA, but in my opinion, they played those qualities better, and those qualities improved the overall movie more.

I guess that's where we reach an impasse. I don't think Jones and co. had much to work with, and their roles suffered because of it. The whole thing seemed like 'we should care about these characters because they're dying' rather than 'we should care that these characters are dying.'

 

[Shareefruck]

I guess that's where we reach an impasse. I don't think Jones and co. had much to work with, and their roles suffered because of it. The whole thing seemed like 'we should care about these characters because they're dying' rather than 'we should care that these characters are dying.'

That's fine, we can disagree-- I just didn't want my comment to be misrepresented for the purpose of easy dismissal.

I took it as "We should care about these characters outcome not because they're individually interesting, but because they're believable, and are after a collective cause that is interesting and that we should care about."

I reacted to Ridley/Boyega's performances more as "We should care about these characters outcome not because they're believable, interesting, or serve the story all that magnificently, but because they're fun/likeable, just like their celebrity counterparts are fun/likeable when interviewed, and we like seeing these types do well and kicking ***."

... and I preferred the former/found it more effective/fruitful.

 

[Roughneck]

That's fine, we can disagree-- I just didn't want my comment to be misrepresented for the purpose of easy dismissal.

I took it as "We should care about these characters outcome not because they're individually interesting, but because they're believable, and are after a collective cause that is interesting and that we should care about."

I reacted to Ridley/Boyega's performances more as "We should care about these characters outcome not because they're believable, interesting, or serve the story all that magnificently, but because they're fun/likeable, just like their celebrity counterparts are fun/likeable when interviewed, and we like seeing these types do well."

... and I preferred the former.

But the former didn't exist in Rogue One.

 

[Shareefruck]

But the former didn't exist in Rogue One.

I don't know what to tell you. I thought it did.

 

[Roughneck]

I thought it did.

Girl fights for the Rebels who killed her father after unseen issues with her guardian are resolved before he dies.


Captivating stuff.

 

[Shareefruck]

Girl fights for the Rebels who killed her father after unseen issues with her guardian are resolved before he dies.


Captivating stuff.

That doesn't at all conflict with "We should care about these characters outcome not because they're individually interesting, but because they're believable, and are after a collective cause that is interesting and that we should care about."

Unlike the whole of TFA, the war was actually engaging and felt like it had stakes, and the leads played their part in it well.

I won't defend their backstories, which, like I said, were poorly defined and uninteresting. But a movie like this didn't really demand them to be, I felt. The focus was on the collective effort, and that was effective/played well.

I don't understand why you're being so possessive/snarky about this. I'm not trying to change your opinion.

 

[Roughneck]

That doesn't at all conflict with "We should care about these characters outcome not because they're individually interesting, but because they're believable, and are after a collective cause that is interesting and that we should care about."

This is interesting for the rank and file that joined on the mission. But it can't possibly be satisfying for the leads of the movie we have been following.

Unlike the whole of TFA, the war was actually engaging and felt like it had stakes, and the leads played their part in it well.

I won't defend their backstories, which, like I said, were poorly defined and uninteresting. But a movie like this didn't really demand them to be, I felt.

I'd say all good movies demand them to be. There's a reason we care more about the guys at the end of Saving Private Ryan than the beginning. We get to know them.

I don't understand why you're being so possessive/snarky about this. I'm not trying to change your opinion.

Because you're wrong. (Don't you know how movie talk works?).

 

[Shareefruck]

This is interesting for the rank and file that joined on the mission. But it can't possibly be satisfying for the leads of the movie we have been following.



I'd say all good movies demand them to be. There's a reason we care more about the guys at the end of Saving Private Ryan than the beginning. We get to know them.



Because you're wrong. (Don't you know how movie talk works?).

I don't follow what you mean by that first line.

Regarding the second point, I definitely disagree that all movies demand that all characters require strong, interesting backstories in order for them to be effective. Movies work or don't work for any number of reasons, and they don't all need to fit into some predefined set of constraints. Hell, great movies don't even require an interesting plot. Rogue One is closer to a well-structured (well, the second half anyways), engaging history lesson/visceral experience that sets the pieces in motion for the OT rather than resembling the character-motivated adventure stories that we're used to from Star Wars, and in that context, the characters are convincing and solid, IMO. You don't need to know about the individual characters' back-story to be engaged in the rebel force's goals.

If your idea of discussion is to try to prove that your opinions are objectively right and universal, this really isn't going to go anywhere.

 

[Aladyyn]

Like someone else said Rogue One was more about the grunt foot soldiers of the rebellion, and that was nice for a change. I don't think it's fair to write off Daisy Ridley in that manner, because "do-no-wrong super-hero Mary-Sue" is basically the definition of a Jedi.

Jedi or not anyone who's been a force adept in the Star Wars universe has been able to do incredible things.

"Reasons why Meetra Surik is the best SW protagonist ever"

 

[PALE PWNR]

This is interesting for the rank and file that joined on the mission. But it can't possibly be satisfying for the leads of the movie we have been following.



I'd say all good movies demand them to be. There's a reason we care more about the guys at the end of Saving Private Ryan than the beginning. We get to know them.



Because you're wrong. (Don't you know how movie talk works?).

You don't need backstories in a movie like that. You just need motivations for the characters (which were clearly defined and made sense, I'd argue moreso than a lot of the other characters in previous Star Wars movies) and a plotline that gives meaning to the sacrifice the characters make. Everyone knew going into the movie that everyone on the good side is dead in the end. You already know they are heroes that made the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good going in. What you don't know is the how and how huge of a sacrifice it was.

 

[Tawnos]

Thought that popped into my head reading this: I'm not sure why we need to care deeply about a character to be upset when they are killed. These are people. I'm always upset when they're killed. I guess I go the other way here. The default position I hold is to care whether or not they live or die. Villains earn their way OUT of that mindset. Heroes don't have to earn their way in.

Maybe this is representative of a larger societal discussion. Idk.

 

[Shareefruck]

You don't need backstories in a movie like that. You just need motivations for the characters (which were clearly defined and made sense, I'd argue moreso than a lot of the other characters in previous Star Wars movies) and a plotline that gives meaning to the sacrifice the characters make. Everyone knew going into the movie that everyone on the good side is dead in the end. You already know they are heroes that made the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good going in. What you don't know is the how and how huge of a sacrifice it was.

Exactly.

Thought that popped into my head reading this: I'm not sure why we need to care deeply about a character to be upset when they are killed. These are people. I'm always upset when they're killed. I guess I go the other way here. The default position I hold is to care whether or not they live or die. Villains earn their way OUT of that mindset. Heroes don't have to earn their way in.

Maybe this is representative of a larger societal discussion. Idk.

That is interesting.

I see your point, except that I do think that heroes need to earn your concern at least in so far as convincing you or giving you the illusion that they can in fact be taken as conscious beings rather than as fictional cartoon characters.

In that sense, I would say my default position is "this is just a bunch of pointless nonsense that the filmmakers carelessly vomited onto the screen hoping to manipulate you so that they can take the money from your pockets." And it needs to earn its way out of that mindset (either by making you temporarily accept the existence of the character or by using that character as a tool for some worthwhile purpose other than making you care about them). Once that's successfully earned, then I mostly agree with your point. In fact, I might take it one step further and say that even if the characters are unlikeable ***holes, that shouldn't be enough to earn their way out of it. I would say that having "likeable protagonists that you want to cheer for" is a totally overstated factor in movies. It's a mindset that almost feels a little narcissistic to me.