Rogue One Discussion (POTENTIAL SPOILERS WITHIN)

Recommended Videos

bastardofmelbourne

New member
Dec 11, 2012
1,038
0
0
BoogieManFL said:
I think people over analyze movies these days. If you couldn't be entertained by Rogue One, I'd say either you're the problem, or it's not your genre of movies in which case you should already know.
Look, I'm as willing to shut my brain off and enjoy a punch-explosion-party as much as anyone. I watched Man of Steel like, eight times, solely because of the fist-fights. But the problem I had with Rogue One was that for the first hour, I was just bored. With a few exceptions (Donnie Yen and Blaster Guy), there wasn't any real action. Just a lot of people talking very quickly about a plot that was more complicated then it needed to be and less interesting than it could've been, and some groan-worthy fanservice cameos.

The first hour and the last two minutes of the film really drag it down. There's fun in the middle, but you enter and exit the theatre feeling...what's a good word...tepid.
 

Kolby Jack

Come at me scrublord, I'm ripped
Apr 29, 2011
2,519
0
0
KissingSunlight said:
As one of the few people who liked Rogue One,
Other than the large amount of critical praise it received and general audience consensus being favorable, you mean. Don't let the overly-cynical atmosphere around here fool you. Most people actually like the movie, and Episode VII for that matter.

I just saw it tonight, and I liked it. It was slightly spoiled for me when I heard someone describe it as "the 'Halo: Reach' of Star Wars," and since I played through Halo: Reach, I obviously knew what that meant (for those who haven't, Halo: Reach is about a group of Spartans who die on Reach one-by-one trying to get Cortana to the ship she's on in Halo 1). Still, I sort of figured that was going to happen anyway, so it wasn't that bad. CG Tarkin and Leia were... poor choices, in my mind. I get it, they are iconic characters important to the universe, but... just show them from the back or something. The uncanny valley was STRONG with them.


I never noticed it, but apparently there were a couple of shout-outs to Star Wars Rebels in the movie, which is awesome for a fan of the show like me. Chopper appears on Yavin IV in one scene and the Ghost is seen in the big climactic space battle, with "General Syndulla" being spoken to over the intercom. That really makes the new canon ideology gel; nothing like the messy, murky old-style canon where they sometimes alluded to things but ignored other things because there were no guidelines for any of it. Now we have actual interplay; a true, shared, constructed universe.

Also I thought the movie does a GREAT job of making people forget that lightsabers and overt Force powers exist in the Star Wars universe... right up until Darth Vader cuts through a dozen terrified rebel soldiers in a darkened hallway like Jason Vorhees. That was excellent film-craft, in my opinion.

All in all I thought it was a great addition to the franchise. Disney is three for three so far!
 

KissingSunlight

Molotov Cocktails, Anyone?
Jul 3, 2013
1,237
0
0
KissingSunlight said:
As one of the few people who liked Rogue One,
What an Idiot!!! Oh, wait. That's me. Rogue One is a critic-proof movie. So, I didn't read reviews of the movie or listen to anyone's opinions about it. However, I do visit The Escapist on a regular basis. It got a bad review from Marter, and a lot of people were crapping on it. So, yeah. I thought the movie was receiving a lot of negative reactions.

Then again, it's not unusual for me loving something that everyone doesn't like. *Looking at my beloved DVD's of Cloud Atlas, Jupiter Rising, Sucker Punch...*
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,286
7,086
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Ezekiel said:
Winnosh said:
Watched it, loved it. Only had one major problem that took me out of the film. And that problem is that they made an entire movie who's plot is to explain away the flaw in the Death Star, and come up with some reason for why it was there.

I hate the idea of the flaw being put there by a rebel collaborator. First of all it's not really a flaw in the system. It's a coolent tunnel for Gigantic Space weapon. You can't have the damn thing completely insulated, the heat has to go somewhere or else the thing blows up. You bomb the reactor of anything, and it blows, that's not a flaw, it's a feature.

It seemed like they were trying to placate people who need an explination for everything, yet forget that it didn't need any explaining. It would be like doing a movie about why Stormtroopers are bad shots. But forgetting that Stormtroopers aren't bad shots, they just can't hit heroes who have plot armor firmly attached. Or who like in A New Hope, there were under orders not to hit in the first place.
I thought the same thing. The station contains a massive core and an unstable super weapon. Also, the Empire was aware of the vulnerability, which is why the hole is protected with a ray shield and guns. There was nothing deceptive about it.
Not to mention the torpedos had to literally make a 90 degree turn to go down the exhaust port. Which only can happen if a space wizard/Jedi gets close enough to do so.

Seriously, if you want to pick on the imperials for terrible planning, go look at the battle in ROTJ. The entire battle of Endor is full of it.

The death star required both someone to design a flaw into it and Space Magic to exploit the flaw, not to mention two separate suicide missions to pull the whole thing off.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Dalisclock said:
Ezekiel said:
Winnosh said:
Watched it, loved it. Only had one major problem that took me out of the film. And that problem is that they made an entire movie who's plot is to explain away the flaw in the Death Star, and come up with some reason for why it was there.

I hate the idea of the flaw being put there by a rebel collaborator. First of all it's not really a flaw in the system. It's a coolent tunnel for Gigantic Space weapon. You can't have the damn thing completely insulated, the heat has to go somewhere or else the thing blows up. You bomb the reactor of anything, and it blows, that's not a flaw, it's a feature.

It seemed like they were trying to placate people who need an explination for everything, yet forget that it didn't need any explaining. It would be like doing a movie about why Stormtroopers are bad shots. But forgetting that Stormtroopers aren't bad shots, they just can't hit heroes who have plot armor firmly attached. Or who like in A New Hope, there were under orders not to hit in the first place.
I thought the same thing. The station contains a massive core and an unstable super weapon. Also, the Empire was aware of the vulnerability, which is why the hole is protected with a ray shield and guns. There was nothing deceptive about it.
Not to mention the torpedos had to literally make a 90 degree turn to go down the exhaust port. Which only can happen if a space wizard/Jedi gets close enough to do so.

Seriously, if you want to pick on the imperials for terrible planning, go look at the battle in ROTJ. The entire battle of Endor is full of it.

The death star required both someone to design a flaw into it and Space Magic to exploit the flaw, not to mention two separate suicide missions to pull the whole thing off.
The 90 degree thing, presumably would have happened regardless, OR an issue with the trench. Why did they need to go down the trench? Couldnt they have just flown at the hole?
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,286
7,086
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Saelune said:
Dalisclock said:
Ezekiel said:
Winnosh said:
Watched it, loved it. Only had one major problem that took me out of the film. And that problem is that they made an entire movie who's plot is to explain away the flaw in the Death Star, and come up with some reason for why it was there.

I hate the idea of the flaw being put there by a rebel collaborator. First of all it's not really a flaw in the system. It's a coolent tunnel for Gigantic Space weapon. You can't have the damn thing completely insulated, the heat has to go somewhere or else the thing blows up. You bomb the reactor of anything, and it blows, that's not a flaw, it's a feature.

It seemed like they were trying to placate people who need an explination for everything, yet forget that it didn't need any explaining. It would be like doing a movie about why Stormtroopers are bad shots. But forgetting that Stormtroopers aren't bad shots, they just can't hit heroes who have plot armor firmly attached. Or who like in A New Hope, there were under orders not to hit in the first place.
I thought the same thing. The station contains a massive core and an unstable super weapon. Also, the Empire was aware of the vulnerability, which is why the hole is protected with a ray shield and guns. There was nothing deceptive about it.
Not to mention the torpedos had to literally make a 90 degree turn to go down the exhaust port. Which only can happen if a space wizard/Jedi gets close enough to do so.

Seriously, if you want to pick on the imperials for terrible planning, go look at the battle in ROTJ. The entire battle of Endor is full of it.

The death star required both someone to design a flaw into it and Space Magic to exploit the flaw, not to mention two separate suicide missions to pull the whole thing off.
The 90 degree thing, presumably would have happened regardless, OR an issue with the trench. Why did they need to go down the trench? Couldnt they have just flown at the hole?
Nah, if you look at the shot in the film, the torpedos deliberately steer about 90 degrees down to enter the port, and that's after luke turned off his targeting computer(which was useless anyway, as the other shots that connected didn't actually go in). And keep in mind, a thermal exhaust port is supposed to expel heat, not suck in solid objects.

I believe the official explanation somewhere in the film is that the guns on the surface would have murdered them if they had flown outside of the trench for any length of time. I sure seems to be the case in the X-WING PC game from back in the 90's(Yeah, I know it's not cannon but I did test the theory).

Though I personally think it has everything to do with the film being an homage(or blantent rip-off if you like) to the war film "The Dambusters", where the bombing run in the film(and presumably the real life operation the film is based off of) required the bombers to release their payloads flying low and slow with a very small attack window(it was literally like down to a few seconds or the bomb wouldn't. Notably, in the film, the bomber squadron takes heavy causalities over numerous bomb runs before they succeed.

In fact, it's pretty blatant considering some of the comments during the bombing run in the Dambuster are used almost word for word during the trench run scene.
 

Saltyk

Sane among the insane.
Sep 12, 2010
16,755
0
0
I just got back from seeing it. Took my mom for her birthday.

Anyway, I enjoyed it. I think the beginning was a bit sloppy and unfocused, but once the film got moving, it found its grove. I enjoyed the characters. I enjoyed the plot. And I gotta be honest, the end was really good. They actually moved in smart ways when they began to move out for the sabotage and attack (they didn't all just run out).

All in all, I give it a 8/10. Maybe a 9/10 if I'm feeling real generous.

Ezekiel said:
Winnosh said:
Watched it, loved it. Only had one major problem that took me out of the film. And that problem is that they made an entire movie who's plot is to explain away the flaw in the Death Star, and come up with some reason for why it was there.

I hate the idea of the flaw being put there by a rebel collaborator. First of all it's not really a flaw in the system. It's a coolent tunnel for Gigantic Space weapon. You can't have the damn thing completely insulated, the heat has to go somewhere or else the thing blows up. You bomb the reactor of anything, and it blows, that's not a flaw, it's a feature.

It seemed like they were trying to placate people who need an explination for everything, yet forget that it didn't need any explaining. It would be like doing a movie about why Stormtroopers are bad shots. But forgetting that Stormtroopers aren't bad shots, they just can't hit heroes who have plot armor firmly attached. Or who like in A New Hope, there were under orders not to hit in the first place.
I thought the same thing. The station contains a massive core and an unstable super weapon. Also, the Empire was aware of the vulnerability, which is why the hole is protected with a ray shield and guns. There was nothing deceptive about it.
Isn't the explanation in the film that her father had deliberated made a fault that would cause a chain reaction if the reactor was hit? Something that would presumably be avoided in any other ship. I mean your car doesn't explode if the engine has a fault.

So if I were going to explain it, the Empire knew of the danger to the exhaust port, but also weren't aware that it would literally cause the whole thing to explode. Therefore the Rebels in the film knew that they needed a way to hit the reactor and trigger the chain reaction and needed the plans to find a way to do that. And at no point in the film does any Imperial officer even seem aware that there is a major fault in the Death Star's design.
 

Neverhoodian

New member
Apr 2, 2008
3,832
0
0
So Mr. Plinkett weighed in on the film:
Some fair arguments to be sure (and hilarious as always), but I think RLM kind of misses the points Rogue One was aiming for and why so many dyed-in-the-wool Star Wars fans like myself love it so much...

1. Rogue One is not meant to be viewed "cold turkey" like ANH or TFA. It's why the "Star Wars" name was moved to the subtitle role ("Rogue One: A Star Wars Story"). Episode VII was the Star Wars movie that got the general public back on board with the franchise. For many viewers (especially the younger ones), it was the first Star Wars movie they had ever seen. The bigwigs at Disney and LucasFilm knew this, thus the decision was made to "play it safe" and essentially make a soft reboot of ANH. Now that everyone's more or less on the same page these "anthology" films are free to do whatever they like without having to worry about explaining the "rules" again.

2. Rogue One is a movie by hardcore Star Wars nerds, for hardcore Star Wars nerds. RLM seems to be partially aware of this with their Half in the Bag [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc2kFk5M9x4] critique ("AT-STs! AT-STs!"), but I don't think they realize how deep the fanservice rabbit hole goes in Rogue One. You see, I wasn't fangasming over the Star Destroyers and Darth Vader (...well okay, I DID fangasm at the second Vader scene). The thing that got me really excited was all the shout-outs and Easter Eggs to the Expanded Universe. Juggernauts, kyber crystals, the Whills, Saw Guerrera, Hammerhead Corvettes, calls for "General Syndulla" over Yavin IV's PA system, the Ghost (aka the ship from "Star Wars: Rebels") participating in the Scarif space battle, etc. That said, they were all subtle enough that it didn't detract from the experience for those not in the know (at least, that's the impression I got when I asked my not-Star-Wars-obsessed friends about it).

3. Yes, the main cast of the Original Trilogy were instantly iconic, but they were also SIMPLE (Luke's the naive idealist, Leia's the bossy, take-charge leader, Han's the cocky, selfish bastard everyone secretly wishes they could be, Obi-Wan was your stereotypical "wise sage" archetype, etc.). Now there's nothing wrong with simple characters, especially when you're dealing with a basic "good vs. evil" opera/spaghetti western like ANH. Rogue One on the other hand isn't so straightforward with its depiction of the Star Wars universe, introducing "shades of gray" morality and the resulting emotional baggage. It explores the harsh realities that rebellions often have to grapple with, such as compromising one's moral values for a greater cause. This results in more nuanced characters that admittedly aren't explored enough, but at least give the impression that they're more than your typical Star Wars archetypes.

4. I for one liked Chirrut Imwe and his Taoist take on the Force. Instead of directly manipulating the Force and bending it to his will, he humbly surrendered himself to it. Not only did it provide a fresh take on what being a Force user means, but it helped bring back some of the Force's mystique by showing that there are many ways to interpret it and utilize its power.

5. I like space battles, dammit! I've always liked the dogfights and ship combat in Star Wars; I was that weird kid on the playground who wanted to be Wedge Antilles when everyone else was arguing over who got to be Luke and Vader. This is the first time I've gotten a satisfying, large scale space brawl since Return of the Jedi, so you'll excuse me if I revel in the spectacle. I haven't had my metaphorical frosting for so long that I almost forgot what it even tasted like.
 

Glongpre

New member
Jun 11, 2013
1,233
0
0
Pretty good.

I am beginning to find that I do not enjoy the same kinds of movies I used to like. I find they all seem uninteresting, or formulaic.
The best part of the movie for me were the two bros, Donnie Yen and the machine gun guy. A cool use of the force, and a bad ass soldier. And the Darth Vader ending got me right in the nostalgia feels.

....but then I saw Princess Leia and was immediately struck by how fucking weird she looked. Her eyes were like too high on her head, or too far apart of something, she looked bizarre.
I didn't find Tarkin too bad though. They did a good job on his animation.

Overall, it just couldn't get me excited, like it may have 5-10 years ago. I found myself thinking that it didn't feel very Star Wars to me.

After the Darth Vader scene though, I immediately wanted to see a movie of him after RotS, where he goes around and hunts the jedi.

And they should add more individuals who can use/perceive the force, but are not traditional jedi/sith, with robes and a lightsaber.
I am one with the force, and the force is with me.
 

bartholen_v1legacy

A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Jan 24, 2009
3,056
0
0
Like Episode VII last year, and Civil War and Dr Strange this year, Rogue One joins the cavalcade of "good enough while watching, forget 90% on the way to the theater door" franchise movies. It's aggressively adequate. Ostensively okay. Monstrously mediocre. Nothing to fault about the effects, the cinematography, the sound or any technical aspect. What's bothering me about this is that they wanted to be darker, but sacrificed having real impact to the altar of the almighty lucrative PG-13 rating. Forest Whitaker's character seemed to be set up almost like an african warlord or a terrorist leader, but all he can do with this rating is talk a bit nuttily and treat people needlessly harshly. The reunion between him and Jyn Erso hinted at her not being all happy-smiley about seeing him again, but we never find out much more. The living lie detector was said to make people lose their minds, but all the pilot character (I've already forgotten basically all the names) seems to be affected by is being a bit shaky and shellshocked for a moment. Moral ambiguity in an action movie unfortunately requires a bit more for me to work. Can't risk being too gray with the characters in a Star Wars movie I suppose.

Given its bloated runtime (seriously, I think the final action scene lasted like 30 minutes), there would really have been more than enough time to flesh out the characters more. Galen Erso's death would have had much more impact if we got to see what his work in the Empire was. Was he almost a slave? A hostage? An unwilling but respected architect who lived in luxury? What was Jyn's life growing up with who eventually became basically a terrorist? What "terrible things" did Cassian Andor do for the rebellion, how did they affect him?

I did like Vader a lot in this though, even if it was basically just a cameo. All his scenes had a proper sensation of weight and terror, like he should. Especially that shot of the doors opening and his shadow forming on the wall. CGI Tarkin was distracting, but I guess my eye's more finely tuned to spot those things than the average moviegoer (we've gotten the eyes right, but the mouth and lip movements just didn't match those of the live actors). The final shot of Jyn and Cassian on the beach gazing at the approaching wall of fire was beautiful. The shout outs to the universe were far less distracting than the ones in TFA.

6/10. Worth watching, but don't expect to ever need watching it again.
 

Blitsie

New member
Jul 2, 2012
532
0
0
Saelune said:
Really, I just want something else. We know Vader's story and I think its basically done at this point. Star Wars is a massive interesting setting, and unlike Lord of the Rings, we have the ability to canonically expand it further, and not just around characters we know, and events we know. Hell, do a time jump. We've seen Star Wars thousands of years ago in KotoR, why not go thousands of years post Death Star, and Vader, and Luke?

Part of my disappointment with TFA is I wanted new and did not get it. I got a poor retread of A New Hope. I DONT want Rey to be related to Luke AT ALL, cause again, I want new. I would find it preferable if Star Wars wasnt just about the Skywalker lineage. Im fine with Rey and Finn being new unrelated characters who are now the heroes of a new time.

Im not a fan of the status quo.
I'm in the exact same boat really. I mean, I enjoyed Rogue One but it just ultimately felt so pointless in the bigger scheme of things and I'm even less excited for whats basically "X-Men "Star Wars Origins: Han" in two years time. Its like why should I even care? We've already had four films establishing the guy well enough and we all know whats going to happen to him anyway.

Its like c'mon guys, you may have cleared the table here by making the EU non-canon and starting after episode VI, but the universe is still huge and there's loads of awesome stuff one can do with it so why lock yourself down by retreading old ground and closely around old ground so much?! Like for instance use these year breaks between main numbered films to let the creative peeps stretch their legs and do what they want, and actually let the next two numbered films move forward instead of side-step like TFA ultimately did.