Rogue One Thoughts & Reviews

Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,618
Reaction score
80
...seems quicker, less labor intensive & overall fiscally logical to have green screen hallway conversations rather than build an actual Jedi Temple, you'd think. When the Disney SW parks are complete, maybe they'll shoot some stuff there, LOL.
I guess that's the real question, since we're on about the 'cost' of GL's planned TV show.
is it really that much cheaper to film everything as a "Special effect" and have a costly "post production" budget, on every single frame of video he shoots?
he relies heavily on digital post-production... but is it really any "cheaper"..? than shooting 'practical' scenes..? on 'practical' sets..?



I'm suddenly reminded of the show that Ron Moore is doing, post BattleStarGalactica... some kind of scottish medieval time-travelling.. thing.
the whole thing reminds me of the "Kobol" episodes of BSG -- where they just took a film crew into the Vancouver forest and filmed 'real human drama' under natural light.
they've built practically NO sets for this thing (beyond simple wooden structures) -- it seems to be done on a 'shoe-string' budget -- but the 'quality' of the show is on par with BSG. easily.

^^ somehow I don't think GL could do the same thing (on the same budget).
with his expensive green-screen-sound-stages and lengthy post-production-process -- 'assembling' a TV show, like a "cut and paste" montage -- his 'method' seems incredibly expensive. :\
(too expensive for "TV", anyway).

if GL were tasked with making "Outlander" he would no doubt say the same thing: "it's too expensive. I'd have to wait until the costs come down." :whistling:
(so either (a) he wouldn't make it at all , or (b) his version would cost 10x the budget and look like a pixar cartoon). LOL
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
2,246
Reaction score
43
Location
Philadelphia
Probably because his filming sites did not exist in the real world, so he could add pretty much anything in later. Why film ow people walking and talking on a city street that looks like L.A., when you want it to look like Tatooine, or Endor, Naboo, Coruscant etc? Even hallways would need green screen. He's filming fantasy people not Transformers which use actual real world locales and vehicles. That is one reason I never understood peoples outcry over too much CGI in his Movies.

It's not like he was filming Gone with the Wind, Hang em High or Wall Street.
Um, that's the OT. Which was filmed long ago. I'm speaking of the PT, of which why I named those other locales. You can't always use Snowy Wilderness, Deserts and Forests for a backdrop in a Space drama.
Um, you included scenes set on Endor among the "filming sites that did not exist in the real world." Um, are you saying Endor was in the PT? Um, location shoots were also used for the Tatooine scenes in the PT as well.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
4,009
Reaction score
0
Location
Northeast CT.
yeah, I could see GL not exactly being a fan of the hectic scheduling seen in network TV either, and the many cooks in those kitchens. You'd think CG would be a bit more feasible, as common as it's become. LOL we don't exactly want Birdemic, or Lake Placid 4 CG though either. Depending on what tales he was potentially wanting to tell in TV, it'll always be unclear to us why it was too much $$$, I mean being SW it should have actual "wars" in it, so, that could be pricey-but so many other shows out there are way up on the effects, maybe the time is coming.
I guess that's the real question, since we're on about the 'cost' of GL's planned TV show.
is it really that much cheaper to film everything as a "Special effect" and have a costly "post production" budget, on every single frame of video he shoots?
he relies heavily on digital post-production... but is it really any "cheaper"..? than shooting 'practical' scenes..? on 'practical' sets..?



I'm suddenly reminded of the show that Ron Moore is doing, post BattleStarGalactica... some kind of scottish medieval time-travelling.. thing.
the whole thing reminds me of the "Kobol" episodes of BSG -- where they just took a film crew into the Vancouver forest and filmed 'real human drama' under natural light.
they've built practically NO sets for this thing (beyond simple wooden structures) -- it seems to be done on a 'shoe-string' budget -- but the 'quality' of the show is on par with BSG. easily.

^^ somehow I don't think GL could do the same thing (on the same budget).
with his expensive green-screen-sound-stages and lengthy post-production-process -- 'assembling' a TV show, like a "cut and paste" montage -- his 'method' seems incredibly expensive. :\
(too expensive for "TV", anyway).

if GL were tasked with making "Outlander" he would no doubt say the same thing: "it's too expensive. I'd have to wait until the costs come down." :whistling:
(so either (a) he wouldn't make it at all , or (b) his version would cost 10x the budget and look like a pixar cartoon). LOL
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,835
Reaction score
89
Location
Oregon
Sorry that was my fault, a part of my post was deleted when typing/spellcheck. Those were meant to be in a different paragraph topic ad were jumbled together.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
7
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Outlander is a fantastic show, I might add!
Havent read the books by Diana Gabaldon, but if they are anything like the show, I prolly should read them.

Colour me extremely intrigued as to where it’s heading... (I have my hunches) :)
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
6,477
Reaction score
0
I was watching RO again and my daughter asked me what Darth Vader's title was (I think she was trying to keep track of all the commanders, governors, generals, captains...) and I said, without really thinking it through, that is was Lord. Which had me wondering when was the expression dark lord of the sith first used? But no matter when it might have been, perhaps making a new use out of it before it was ever determined why he had that title, I thought that perhaps many even in the upper ranks of the Empire might not have known or considered the Force powers of Vader (and Palpatine...if that was even anything anyone but Vader knew anyway) to give them any "title".

So Palpatine was the Emperor and Vader was perhaps, in their eyes anyway, Lord of Mustafar? Or Lord of Coruscant? Not quite as a cover story but just kind of as a convenient way to not have his position vis a vis the Emperor and the ranks amongst the loyal systems questioned. Just a thought. I kind of like the idea he would have been considered Lord of Mustafar myself.
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,835
Reaction score
89
Location
Oregon
It's probably something as simple as "lost in translation", as maybe there's no direct meaning for his title from Aurebesh to English. lol
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,618
Reaction score
80
I first read the words "dark lord of the sith" in the O-pee-chee trading cards, between IV and V.

it was part of the marketing campaign for SW'77, but never spoken in the movie.

(it might be in the novelization by Alan Dean Foster (ghost writing as "george lucas") but I can't remember).

AFAIK, it was introduced between IV and V.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
6,477
Reaction score
0
Yeah, figured it was out there before the prequels, just couldn't remember specifically when. Trading card rings a bell!

I still think that either it was possible that the Moffs etc might have known the "lord" meant "of the Sith" but did not care since they were pretty much just religious types who still believed in the Force but that was almost laughable now that the Jedi were extinct and taken out so completely. Or they just assumed he was Lord of something...like a planet or region...like Mustafar (Darth Vader's castle world having been finally named after the PT/new era SW) or some other place. Like I said, I like the idea of it even if there is nothing to indicate this was the intent in any of the writing.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
4,009
Reaction score
0
Location
Northeast CT.
yeah i believe it was his Bespin carbon room silhouette, and it said dark lord of the sith as the card title, first set too i believe.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2014
Messages
913
Reaction score
1
Location
Hanging out in a room with shelves full of stuff I
I first read the words "dark lord of the sith" in the O-pee-chee trading cards, between IV and V.

it was part of the marketing campaign for SW'77, but never spoken in the movie.

(it might be in the novelization by Alan Dean Foster (ghost writing as "george lucas") but I can't remember).

AFAIK, it was introduced between IV and V.
Just a note, Motti and Tagge in an extended/deleted part of their argument on the first Death Star comment they both are untrusting of the Emperor sending this "Sith Lord" to govern over the high command or something. The deleted parts with this was shown at Celebration Europe I think. ... here the link below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja4WudpzBYw
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
6,477
Reaction score
0
Very interesting! Though it is not proof that Lucas did not imagine the Emperor to be Sith himself it does show that the Moffs most likely had no idea.
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,835
Reaction score
89
Location
Oregon
I was thinking today, since so many people like those Elite Stormtroopers. Would a movie based on 4-5 specialized Imperial Commandos, in that armor interest anyone? Perhaps set between ANH and ROTJ, with Mon Mothma their target?
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,618
Reaction score
80
like the video game "republic commando?" it's an interesting idea. but I don't think it would have much staying power, since the game itself proved entirely forgettable.
(it was a fun game but it didn't have much to do with the rest of the SW universe, and was completely forgotten by the fandom;
unlike the old republic games which were released around the same timeframe -- they survive on the lore they established).
I think a game like this would have to see your 4-5 man commando group discovering some kind of ancient artifact relating back to the saga-story. or something.
(it would depend on the 'plot' of their adventure, and how strongly it ties to the rest of the saga -- the way the plot of RO ties back to the rest of the saga -- but I don't think the 'commandos' concept would survive on its own legs, unfortunately).
(you'd have to give them a saga-related story and then kill them all at the end of the movie :p like RO)
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,835
Reaction score
89
Location
Oregon
This would basically be like a sequelish to R1 though, or just similar in nature. The Elite Squad is hunting down the leader of the Rebellion to try and finally put an end to it, while at the same time trying to prevent the Bothans from delivering the DS2 plans to them. Mothma seemed very somber in ROTJ, so she could have been very close to the situation and just barely survived. I would also include Hera and Chopper more in this, and as the one who rescued Mothma. It is now Canon that Hera was at Endor. Or the "Mothma" character could even be Madine, or some unknown? I don't mean to say that the Commandos are the only plot point.

I just thought that as good as R1 was, they should return to that type of story and telling of it. Or just get that guy to Direct a stand alone movie that has nothing to do with the OT.
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
4,591
Reaction score
13
Location
North Carolina
Sounds close to the Battlefront II: Inferno Squad novel, just with actual high-profile targets and not the leftovers from Saw's group.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
8
For anyone who may be interested— or missed this, there’s a rather candid interview with Tom Gilroy on his contributions to RO, along with his feelings about SW in general. Here’s a link of the condensed interview: http://www.jeditemplearchives.com/2018-04-06-tony-gilroy-talks-about-rogue-one-reshoots-for-the-first-time/

Finding this revelation quite interesting and refreshing: “I’ve never been interested in Star Wars, ever. So I had no reverence for it whatsoever. I was unafraid about that. And they were in such a swamp, they were in so much terrible, terrible trouble that all you could do was improve their position.”

Finally— someone who admits to not giving a f*ck about SW LOOOL …And still, the end results proved extremely far far far superior than the rip-off pretenders JJ and Rian who professed their adoration for this franchise. (Still despise the Vader vs Rebels cutscene and the creepy uncanny valley Leia inclusions).

Now more than ever, would be great if there will be a release of a RO set with Gareth’s original version(s). This is something I would gladly pay Disney for. RO and its dealings just keeps getting more and more interesting...
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,835
Reaction score
89
Location
Oregon
TBH, he doesn't exactly have an extensive resume compared to some. Nor has he done much that I would care to watch, or have seen. His most notable would be Bourne series, but I was never that big a fan of those anyways. So for LFL to have him come in to fix R1 seems odd to me, when so many other talented people exist. Another issue is, why was it deemed to be in such a mess that they had to bring in a "fixer". Yet allowed TLJ to roll n without the same treatment?

And what would the benefit of seeing the "original" R1 be? If it really was in that much trouble, what good would seeing do? Other than cement the fact they cannot seem to find the right people to Direct/write Star Wars.

P.S. Nothing against Gilroy, he's just essentially a nobody to me. Though if he truly saved R1 form what it was, and if it really was that bad. I commend him, as the movie did turn out well. Though there are still issues I'd have fixed, as well as avoided altogether.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
8
^^^ The world of RO is unexpectedly fascinating and I’m still getting blissfully lost in it (Diego remains the only weak link of the lot: He’s too mousey. Ben Barnes or Gael García Bernal would have suited that role to a stronger impact with Felicity). So any content that would be offered to its (original) production is a worthy welcome. And this supposedly dreadful, “terrible terrible trouble” Tom speaks of before his involvement is something I would love to see for myself. As much I liked Gareth’s Monsters from my first viewing, I get that it may not be a film that most may enjoy. So I wonder if RO may have had a similar slowburning tone like Monsters before Tom got involved…

Someone like Tom is definitely an odd choice (and even more odd he’s speaking so candidly of his experience rather than going with the Disney-approved rehearsed script of non-stop gushing that’s typical of anyone involved with SW), with his proud admission he never cared for SW. But he absolutely turned out to be the right addition for RO in this case. It comes down to someone (even a “nobody”) who is skilled, professional and talented enough to tell a strong story with a vision— along with an art department that’s given the creative freedom to design a strong aesthetic. And some passion is always nice… That’s what’s important o me in a SW story; not OT-nostalgia and OT-callbacks, following Marvel trends, pleasing trendy identity politics of the day...

As for why Disney may have championed TLJ’s choppy pacing and found it ideal— that’s exactly why: It employs all the latest trends-by-numbers in a blockbuster. Its choppy, rushed and its Youtube-style editing and tone-deaf storytelling with cheap multi-moneyshots/gotchas is what the casual moviegoing audience seems to want these days. TLJ/Sequel is what it is: It’s the SW middle-age uncle desperately trying to be down with the Marvel kids.
 
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,296
Reaction score
98
I'd love to see Edward's original cut. I really like the idea of his "war documnetary" approach of everyone dying on the beach, Normandy style. It's perfectly fitting as 'Rogue One' was essentially a war movie. Obviously, Kennedy and LFL diagree and I kind of dislike that Gilroy is mudding the waters further on this matter. I also think that this "Gareth was fired" misnomer has hurt his career somewhat, which is a real shame. For me, he's the only person that has understood Star Wars properly from the current crop of creatives. Frankly, I'd give him the reigns of a new trilogy over Johnson every single day of the week. Edward's gets Star Wars, at least Imperial period Star Wars, as his film blends with the 1977 film perfectly. Whereas Abrams and Johnson missed the boat on so many levels, even when Abrams was, basically, copying the first film.

To me 'Rogue One' is the best thing to come out of Disney's custodianship of Star Wars and, to be honest, it'll probably remain that way for some time to come. I'm not expecting much from 'Solo', I haven't fallen for the hype. It'll probably be entertaining for the most part, but it really should have been about a completely different character. Ehrenreich will never be Han Solo. There's just too much Harrison Ford in there and the timeline doesn't allow for a convincing actor switch. McGregor and Guinness get away with it, because there's decades of life between the two takes. 'Solo' is taking place in the same decade. It's going to be jarring, to say the very least. I get the feeling that years from now, 'Solo' will be viewed as sort of the basta*d child of the Star Wars universe and Ehrenreich's Hank Solo will just be sticking out like a sore thumb.

My main worry about 'Solo' is that'll do really well, or well enough, to allow Disney to greenlight an actor switch for Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia and anyone else they care to milk, until those characters become so watered down with different takes that they're unrecognisable from the people we once loved.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
431
Reaction score
0
Location
Tatooine (aka Texas)
I'd love to see Edward's original cut. I really like the idea of his "war documnetary" approach of everyone dying on the beach, Normandy style.

Edward's gets Star Wars, at least Imperial period Star Wars, as his film blends with the 1977 film perfectly.
This is exactly why I will never get the Rogue One hype. People claim its “a war movie” (which it tries to be) but there are too many fantastical Star Wars elements that go against that theme. At the same time, it can't be a true Star Wars movie because 90% of it is either dark or depressing, with a message of hope shoved in at the end (I assume this is Disney and Gilroy's doing). That being said I too would love to see Edwards' original cut because I would want to see him go full on with one of these genres and create something completely new we haven’t seen before. Vice versa, I want to see Rian Johnson go all out with his trilogy, because so many subversive elements clearly didn't work for TLJ, he can now play in his own sandbox with his own characters.

P.S. Solo takes place at least ONE decade before ANH. This is a 20 year old Han Solo. I have no idea why there's this perception that Leia and Luke will be recast. You have absolutely nothing to work with for Luke Skywalker before ANH, and it's clear after Rebels and Princess of Alderaan, they've done as much pre ANH Leia as they could. And trust me, Disney knows that recasting Leia would be in TERRIBLE taste with Carrie's passing. Heck, they won't even CGI her in IX.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,296
Reaction score
98
This is exactly why I will never get the Rogue One hype. People claim its “a war movie” (which it tries to be) but there are too many fantastical Star Wars elements that go against that theme.
This doesn't make any sense. You know, there is a Galatic Civil war going on in the OT, right? And I don't see how having Star Wars elements in the picture go "against" the war movie elements. It's a Star Wars film, after all?

Not trying to be sarcy here. Just genuinely baffled.

At the same time, it can't be a true Star Wars movie because 90% of it is either dark or depressing, with a message of hope shoved in at the end
Again, this doesn't make sense. The Imperial period is "dark" and "depressing". Entire worlds are under military or, at least, political occupation. This is the time when people turn to "hope", cos they've got little else. I thought all of those themes in 'Rogue One' were superbly handled and Star Wars had actually grown up a bit and after the juvenile antics of the prequels. It was refreshing, to say the least. 'Rogue One' actually expanded the story of the war in Star Wars. It dispensed with the black and white view of the Rebels and Empire and gave us a more rounded perspective and I tip my hat to Gareth Edward's for doing that. It was 'Rogue One' that kick started my Star Wars mojo again, after 'The Force Awakens' left me in Groundhog Day, feeling that I'd seen the movie before, even as I watched it in the cinema for the first time.

That being said I too would love to see Edwards' original cut because I would want to see him go full on with one of these genres and create something completely new we haven’t seen before. Vice versa, I want to see Rian Johnson go all out with his trilogy, because so many subversive elements clearly didn't work for TLJ, he can now play in his own sandbox with his own characters.
I wouldn't let Johnson near another Star Wars film. He doesn't get it...and I say that as someone who likes 'Brick' and 'Looper' and thinks he's a decent director. But, not for Star Wars. His sense of tone is non-existant and the comedy sections (which I bet he was asked to write by the Disney suits) were wretched. But, frankly, after the backlash for 'The Last Jedi' - which Disney won't ignore - I just cannot see him getting that new trilogy gig now. But then, I'd really like to know who, exactly, was responsible for the worst parts of 'The Last Jedi'. I hear that it was Kennedy who insisted on the Leia Poppins scene, for instance, and it wouldn't be in the film at all but for her.

P.S. Solo takes place at least ONE decade before ANH.
Yeh, I know. But that's just a ten year period and one where human beings change the least, physically. Han in supposed to be about 30 in 'Star Wars', so, in 'Solo' he's about 20. The problem is he's going to walk off as Ehrenreich in 'Solo' and walk back in a Ford in 'Star Wars'.

That's going to jar terribly. There's just no way that that's going to sit well at all.

This is a 20 year old Han Solo. I have no idea why there's this perception that Leia and Luke will be recast. You have absolutely nothing to work with for Luke Skywalker before ANH, and it's clear after Rebels and Princess of Alderaan, they've done as much pre ANH Leia as they could. And trust me, Disney knows that recasting Leia would be in TERRIBLE taste with Carrie's passing. Heck, they won't even CGI her in IX.
There's a huge period AFTER 'Return of the Jedi' to consider. I'm not talking about "pre ANH". Disney want to milk the OT characters for as much as they can and it's just impossible to believe that they won't want to produce a Luke Skywalker film in the future, set in the period imediately after 'Return of the Jedi', or between 'Star Wars' and 'The Empire Strikes Back'. Problem is, Hammil is too old now for that and that means a recast.

And if 'Solo' does well, then were one step closer to that happening.

As for "taste", that gets quickly washed away by $.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
8
SW, even at its best, will never be a true war film, since it will always be contained by its fantasy/fairy tale, all-ages prerequisites. And to criticize it’s not a true SW film because it’s too dark and depressing, is limiting the imaginative scope and potential narrative of future SW stories to a tired template And it’s because it bucks the SW-template and subverts my initial impression of such a predictable template, that it wildly exceeds my expectations and rates up their next to ESB as one of the best additions to this franchise.

I’m still enjoying RO and TPM-- which has been my personal fav since 1999 LOL BTW, if anyone hasn’t already, watch RO followed by ESB, and the tone and quality lines up so harmoniously that RO is a superior companion to ESB than its intended companion ANH.
 
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,296
Reaction score
98
If you watch 'Rogue One' and follow it directly with the original 'Star Wars', it flows perfectly and is tonally consistent too. 'Star Wars' has a pretty gruesome and quite somber first half. It opens with a slaughterhouse, Beru and Owen get fried, limbs are chopped off, an entire planet of billions is wiped out and Kenobi gets cut in half.

It's only the second half of the film that lightens up a bit and it ends in a triumph for the Rebels, which is ultimately the "hope" coda of 'Rogue One' coming true. But, for the bulk of its running time, it's no jolly adventure. It's serious business.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
431
Reaction score
0
Location
Tatooine (aka Texas)
If you watch 'Rogue One' and follow it directly with the original 'Star Wars', it flows perfectly and is tonally consistent too. 'Star Wars' has a pretty gruesome and quite somber first half. It opens with a slaughterhouse, Beru and Owen get fried, limbs are chopped off, an entire planet of billions is wiped out and Kenobi gets cut in half.

It's only the second half of the film that lightens up a bit and it ends in a triumph for the Rebels, which is ultimately the "hope" coda of 'Rogue One' coming true. But, for the bulk of its running time, it's no jolly adventure. It's serious business.
Right, but Rogue One is a far more realistic tale focused on the common soldier for most of the film. The “gruesome” first half of ANH is supposed to be the known, ordinary, depressing world of the Hero's Journey in a time where tyranny reigns supreme. The “slaughterhouse” you speak of is 1970's sci fi extras in goofy helmets shooting lasers at each other, a far cry from the executions and torture seen in Rogue One. The hope in A New Hope starts in the very beginning when Luke Skywalker finds R2-D2 and Princess Leia's message. Obi-Wan cutting off Ponda Baba's arm is a necessary display of the power of a lightsaber, a Jedi's divine weapon, far more civilized and efficient than a thug's blaster, it's not a dark moment of violence meant to establish tone. When Luke Skywalker, an ordinary farmer, leaves on the Millenium Falcon, he crosses the threshold and enters a world of magic, wizards, adventure, and spaceships. In the end, Luke becomes a hero and destroys the Death Star. Rogue One starts with Jyn Erso, a jaded ex-terrorist going on a suicide heist mission to steal the plans to a deadly weapon. She and the viewer are already familiar with everything this universe has to offer, even the Force. It maintains a somber tone until the hope element comes in before the climax and never comes into full play before Leia gets the plans. Even then, the heroes end their stories as dead soldiers to never be remembered. Luke's family dies, but he doesn't watch them get slaughtered like Jyn did. Rogue One doesn't even follow the hero's journey because it's a tragedy. Jyn Erso already is left with no ordinary world in the beginning of the movie, she recieves no reward for her sacrifices, and the story ultimately leads to her downfall, not her resurrection. But hope is still involved somehow because Jyn Erso has the drive that leads to her death and we know what happens in the next one.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,618
Reaction score
80
if RO, ANH, and ESB all have a more 'serious' tone to them... then the "tonal" difference is the lack of puppet-show humor and fart jokes.

if a newcomer to SW were to start with RO and then follow it with ANH and ESB.. they would become accustomed to a certain "tone" for SW.

they would most likely reject ROTJ as a "kiddie movie". (as I did in 1983).


ROTJ marked the point where GL took complete creative control, and he turned the franchise into a puppet show. I think TFA tried too hard to capture the "ROTJ" tone of the franchise. the cutesy "light" tone of GL's corny humor.

--> I would argue that the darker tone of RO was the ORIGINAL tone of the franchise; RO lives up to the "tone" of Hollywood's Original Blockbuster very nicely -- the 1977 movie which became the TEMPLATE for ALL future blockbusters.

RO should not be criticized as "not SW enough", simply because it's not a cutesy puppet show like ROTJ --- if anything, I would say a movie like TFA is "not SW enough", because it IS a cutesy puppet show. :\


RO is true to the original tone of the industry's FIRST "blockbuster" -- this darker tone IS the true template of SW -- the "tonal" choice, which successfully launched the entire global phenomenon of SW (and created the very 'blockbuster' movie-format which still continues to this day).

GL went off course, with all his "yippee!" dung humor, starting with those blasted ewoks in ROTJ -- this cutesy tone is NOT the 'true template of SW', and should NEVER be used to define the franchise :rolleyes:

RO IS the true tone of SW.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
431
Reaction score
0
Location
Tatooine (aka Texas)
if RO, ANH, and ESB all have a more 'serious' tone to them... then the "tonal" difference is the lack of puppet-show humor and fart jokes.

if a newcomer to SW were to start with RO and then follow it with ANH and ESB.. they would become accustomed to a certain "tone" for SW.

they would most likely reject ROTJ as a "kiddie movie". (as I did in 1983).


ROTJ marked the point where GL took complete creative control, and he turned the franchise into a puppet show. I think TFA tried too hard to capture the "ROTJ" tone of the franchise. the cutesy "light" tone of GL's corny humor.

--> I would argue that the darker tone was the ORIGINAL tone of SW and RO lives up to the "tone" of the original blockbuster very nicely.

it should not be criticized as "not SW enough", simply because it's not a cutesy puppet show --- if anything, I would say a movie like TFA is "not SW enough", because it IS a cutesy puppet show. :\


RO is true to the original tone of the franchise -- this IS the true template of SW -- the "tonal" choice, which successfully launched the entire global phenomenon of SW.

GL went off course, with all his "yippee!" dung humor, starting with those blasted ewoks in ROTJ -- this is NOT the 'true template of SW' , and should NEVER be used to define "SW". :p LOL
You missed the point completely. Rogue One can't be compared to the rest of the movies in tone because it's a mostly grounded tragedy. That doesn't make it a bad movie by any means. But, the rest of the movies are epics, epics George at first designed as a mix of classic mythical storytelling and cheesy sci-fi serials like Flash Gordon he enjoyed as a kid. It's the one thing Star Wars fans have been scared to admit ever since TLJ, Star Wars is at heart, a kids movie. And big surprise, being a kids movie doesn't mean it's a puppet show that adults can't enjoy. Go watch a Pixar movie for Christ's sake. But, Star Wars is a very mature kids movie with very well woven classic storytelling. But to act like it was created and launched into a phenomenon because it was “dark” is so ignorant against what it was trying to achieve. George made that movie BECAUSE he wanted something to escape the dark post-Nam films lacking true heroes that were coming out at the time, but he still managed to breath current political tones into it.

That's why I think TFA succeeded. It may have used the same story as another movie, but it still features plucky heroes going on an adventure fighting evil with themes of family, fate, and destiny.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,618
Reaction score
80
ANH was about a citizen of the Empire who gets 'radicalized' by a religious fanatic and then commits a terrorist act against the government which kills 200,000 servicemen.. but if you asked me as a child I would have said it was about 'spaceships'. Rogue One is no different. "children" don't pay attention to the story. watch a Pixar Movie WITH a child beside you. for christ's sake. the story goes straight over their heads. they don't care.
 
Joined
May 11, 2017
Messages
669
Reaction score
1
I don't think that's true.

Me and plenty of other kids cared about the story of Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc. The only time we didn't care was when the story sucked, such as Cars 2.

I don't think you give kids enough credit.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
431
Reaction score
0
Location
Tatooine (aka Texas)
ANH was about a citizen of the Empire who gets 'radicalized' by a religious fanatic and then commits a terrorist act against the government which kills 200,000 servicemen.. but if you asked me as a child I would have said it was about 'spaceships'. Rogue One is no different. "children" don't pay attention to the story. watch a Pixar Movie WITH a child beside you. for christ's sake. the story goes straight over their heads. they don't care.
You extremly underestimate kids because while I didn't understand where the story came from as a kid, I still knew it was about a boy who becomes a hero. I still knew The Incredibles was a movie about family and Toy Story was a movie about friendship and selflessness. Nobody says The Incredibles is a “dark superhero movie about government control and revenge” or “Toy Story is a movie where someone attempts to kill his coworker.” We can do the whole “hurr durr the rebels are terrorists and Luke's a mass murderer” thing, but the movie never addresses that, Rogue One does. Star Wars fandom was ruined by people making it out to be some complex adult franchise it never was. Plus, does that make it double standards for people to say Luke is a terrorist who kills 200,000 people, but Luke considering the possibility of killing Ben Solo makes him a cold blooded murderer?

EDIT: looks like Prequellover beat me to my Pixar point
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,618
Reaction score
80
so Jyn is not a Hero because she dies at the end..? (you seem to be seeing RO from a certain angle so I gave you the same angle on Luke).
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
2,246
Reaction score
43
Location
Philadelphia
ANH was about a citizen of the Empire who gets 'radicalized' by a religious fanatic and then commits a terrorist act against the government which kills 200,000 servicemen.. but if you asked me as a child I would have said it was about 'spaceships'. Rogue One is no different. "children" don't pay attention to the story. watch a Pixar Movie WITH a child beside you. for christ's sake. the story goes straight over their heads. they don't care.
So because you were a dumb kid who didn't understand ANH, that means no one else did?

This actually explains so much about you. You didn't understand Star Wars as a kid so now you over compensate by lecturing others about it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
431
Reaction score
0
Location
Tatooine (aka Texas)
so Jyn is not a Hero because she dies at the end..? (you seem to be seeing RO from a certain angle so I gave you the same angle on Luke).
You don’t know what the hero’s journey is, do you? Rogue One is a tragedy. Tragedies end with either the downfall or demise of a hero. A hero’s journey, or epic, traditionally ends with the hero returning to his ordinary world, or a new one as a man changed for the better (there is a difference between a hero and heroINE’s journey). Each trilogy is each of these genres. The prequels are a tragedy, the OT is the epic, and the sequels are the heroine’s journey.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,618
Reaction score
80
So because you were a dumb kid who didn't understand ANH, that means no one else did?

This actually explains so much about you. You didn't understand Star Wars as a kid so now you over compensate by lecturing others about it.
I was playing devil's advocate because somebody doesn't understand Rogue One. presumably an adult.

You don’t know what the hero’s journey is, do you? Rogue One is a tragedy.
jyn's "hero's journey" takes her to a place where she can rejoin the human race and form human relationships again with people like cassian, which is something she couldn't do before the events of this movie. her death was only physical; it was not the "Demise" of her quest in the way that you're describing (like macbeth); she actually "Triumphs" in her quest, and re-enters the human race at the end of the movie as a changed woman who is healed and complete -- macbeth does NOT triumph and he brings his "Demise" onto himself through a fatal character flaw, which is the defining characteristic of EVERY tragedy -- (you don't know what a tragedy is, do you?) -- you're just basing your definition on the fact that she 'dies' which misses the point entirely -- tragedies are cautionary tales which are defined by the character's 'Fatal Flaw' (which prevents him from completing his quest); not defined by the fact that they "die a hero" (AFTER completing their quest). omg :rolleyes:

((and/or: if rogue one is a tragedy, then what's Jyn's Fatal Flaw? "hope" !? (ROFL!!) you don't understand star wars; hope is a 'good' thing in SW; she died a hero in this movie)).

jyn's "hope" is projected onto the entire galaxy, and manifests later in the "new hope" Luke (who idolizes the Rebellion SHE started) --> this SAME "hope" is projected BY Luke, onto "broom boy" at the end of TLJ [which means] jyn's idealism was the ORGANIC SOURCE of the very "hope" that we see, STILL ALIVE, at the last scene of TLJ --> she triumphs in her hero's quest. she spreads hope to the entire galaxy. and THEN she dies. happy AND "changed" [which means] this is NOT a "tragedy" dude, you missed the whole point of this movie. she died at peace with herself, AFTER completing her hero's quest. this "inner peace" was her reward. like Frodo, 'leaving middle earth' at the end of the epic -- she completed her quest and moved on.

Jyn/SW is all about "hope" -- and "hope" WINS in the end (!) -- watch it again :p
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
6,571
Reaction score
219
Location
NJ
Jyn didn't start the Rebellion. The Rebellion already existed.
 
Top