[charmerci]

What!  The Death Star isn't around anymore?

Yeah, they've stored in a bunch of warehouse boxes in a secret US gov't underground building.

[WGH]

Yeah, they've stored in a bunch of warehouse boxes in a secret US gov't underground building.

Warehouse 13 doesn't look that big on the outside but is certainly big enough to store the Deathstar.

[Rob Babcock]

Well, I caved and saw it.   It gets a solid "meh" from me.  Not terrible but not Star Wars.  It's unrelentingly dark and surprisingly violent.  You know the way that Bourne imitated Bond and was in turn imitated by the new Bond?  Only to go back and imitate the imitation?  That's this film.  Lots of callbacks and nostalgia in place of new ideas, original races and vehicles recreated with gaudy new CGI in place of character development.  Gone is the struggle between good and evil, replaced with shades of gray.  9/11 has filtered down into outer space it would seem.  There are chases and escapes as you would expect, a space-fish Admiral that's probably a cousin of Akbar's, and of course the tense race to get those shields down.   To be fair it's hard to build suspense with yet another prequel; we've known the ending for almost 40 years.  They do flesh out the motivations which is either kind of cool or pointless retconning depending on your point of view.

I did not care one bit for the CGI resurrection of dead actors.  Cushing has been dead for decades IIRC.  It has not improved his screen presence at all.  The dead eyes and broken doll effect is really distracting and disconcerting.  It was almost worse with Carrie Fisher.  I realize the film hit theaters shortly before her untimely death but it's an unwelcome bit of creepiness to see her digital doppleganger staring dead eyed from the screen so soon after her passing.

In summary I didn't much enjoy Rogue One.  For me it was well composed and professionally done but an effort that adds up less than the sum of its parts.  Not a complete waste but unless you simply have to see anything Disney puts out with SW in the title, I would pass.

[Folsom]

I don't really know what the fuck you're talking about in the first paragraph. I think we saw different movies.

Would I have prefered non-CGI faces? Ya, just use make up, make it good enough and live with it.

I tell everyone to make sure to see it in theaters.

[Rob Babcock]

I don't really know what the fuck you're talking about in the first paragraph. I think we saw different movies.

Would I have prefered non-CGI faces? Ya, just use make up, make it good enough and live with it.

I tell everyone to make sure to see it in theaters.

  I guess we disagree, then?  It happens.  If you enjoyed it, good for you.  Different strokes for different folks.

[ctviggen]

I think the first three releases were okay. The first one was revolutionary for "its time" but not especially compelling or good enough to stand the test of time. Still it was quite an achievement for its revolutionary visual effects. Unlike most sequels, the 2nd was written and crafted much better. Relative to The Empire Strikes Back, the 3rd one was something of a disappointment.

The Phantom Menace was a huge let down. Like Return of the Jedi, it could have been much better but was derailed by the need to capitalize on all the potential revenue of kiddie cash, which without, you cannot have a blockbuster. Since I don't have kids, it was the last Star Wars film I bothered with.

In the beginning Star Wars was visionary and even arguably artistic. But the franchise soon lost its way by pandering to the youngest audience merely for the sake of eeking out every possible dollar at the box office.

Am I the only person who liked the original third Star Wars movie better than the second movie?  I may be.  I stopped watching after the 5th (in real time, 8th I think in placement); that is, I haven't seen the last 4 movies.  The 4th I thought was horrendous and the 5th was poor enough, I stopped watching.  I couldn't take that every part of the screen had something in it.  There's no need to show hundreds of spaceships just because you can.  Plus, I'm still galled I can't get the original Star Wars on DVD/Bluray. I don't want the new version created by Lucas, as I think he added a bunch of crap to it.  I liked it the way it was. 

[mcgsxr]

I stopped actively watching after the 3rd movie (technically the 6th?).

All since then have been a departure from what made the initial 3 (middle 3?) good.

I will see this one at some point, but am in no rush.  I enjoyed the experience of taking my kids to the one last year, but that experience certainly outshone the actual movie.

[wushuliu]

Well, I caved and saw it.   It gets a solid "meh" from me.  Not terrible but not Star Wars.  It's unrelentingly dark and surprisingly violent.  You know the way that Bourne imitated Bond and was in turn imitated by the new Bond?  Only to go back and imitate the imitation?  That's this film.  Lots of callbacks and nostalgia in place of new ideas, original races and vehicles recreated with gaudy new CGI in place of character development.  Gone is the struggle between good and evil, replaced with shades of gray.  9/11 has filtered down into outer space it would seem.  There are chases and escapes as you would expect, a space-fish Admiral that's probably a cousin of Akbar's, and of course the tense race to get those shields down.   To be fair it's hard to build suspense with yet another prequel; we've known the ending for almost 40 years.  They do flesh out the motivations which is either kind of cool or pointless retconning depending on your point of view.

I did not care one bit for the CGI resurrection of dead actors.  Cushing has been dead for decades IIRC.  It has not improved his screen presence at all.  The dead eyes and broken doll effect is really distracting and disconcerting.  It was almost worse with Carrie Fisher.  I realize the film hit theaters shortly before her untimely death but it's an unwelcome bit of creepiness to see her digital doppleganger staring dead eyed from the screen so soon after her passing.

In summary I didn't much enjoy Rogue One.  For me it was well composed and professionally done but an effort that adds up less than the sum of its parts.  Not a complete waste but unless you simply have to see anything Disney puts out with SW in the title, I would pass.

I think those are fair points. The biggest problem i have with these new episodes is disney refusing to be original. I think that's why so many reshoots were done. Apparently they shot an entirely different movie originally. My guess it was initially a smaller more character driven film that was a little more original and the bigwigs saw it and freaked out and decided to add vader and the physical death star and as many references as possible. This is the new normal. Zero originality and minimize the creative input to satisfy the shareholders. In light of all that it's amazing the film holds up as it does. It could have been another suicide squad. Yikes.

[wushuliu]

Am I the only person who liked the original third Star Wars movie better than the second movie?  I may be.  I stopped watching after the 5th (in real time, 8th I think in placement); that is, I haven't seen the last 4 movies.  The 4th I thought was horrendous and the 5th was poor enough, I stopped watching.  I couldn't take that every part of the screen had something in it.  There's no need to show hundreds of spaceships just because you can.  Plus, I'm still galled I can't get the original Star Wars on DVD/Bluray. I don't want the new version created by Lucas, as I think he added a bunch of crap to it.  I liked it the way it was.

Apparently disney is sitting on a 4k resoration of the first film. No one knows if it's the special edition or not. My best is it's the original and they're gonna make people beg for it and charge an arm and a leg.

[Folsom]

I really liked ROTJ. (call it Episode 6, third movie) But I liked it a lot more before Lucas got his hands on digital equipment.

Probably everyone basically has prayers for a BR/4k release of the original Trilogy without Lucas's digital compoopery. A set that is with and without would be ok. And in a couple of minor cases there's one or two additions that are ok. But I believe there isn't a sole that would rather show their kids the Han & Jabba scene in the hanger, over the original movie without it. I'd so prefer Tatoonine without the retarded creatures "being funny" in the streets, or the band additions.

wushuliu, do you think the other movie may have been more of a feminist/hunger games/only about Jan Urso/actions star, type of thing? That's how the original previews got you thinking, like the movie was going to suck as a political statement or something. In that case they did good, but otherwise? That is unless you're talking about Force Awakens, in which case I'm sure the first version would be preferred.

[wushuliu]

wushuliu, do you think the other movie may have been more of a feminist/hunger games/only about Jan Urso/actions star, type of thing? That's how the original previews got you thinking, like the movie was going to suck as a political statement or something. In that case they did good, but otherwise? That is unless you're talking about Force Awakens, in which case I'm sure the first version would be preferred.

I think the Rogue trailers hinted at more of a Magnificent Seven/Seven Samurai kind of feel (which would make sense in a way since Kurosawa was a big influence on Lucas for A New Hope). If anything they emphasized Urso's character more with the reshoots. The way the film dispatches with the crew is so clumsy you know there was more footage there. I mean what happens with the robot K2SO was so out of the blue. GREAT character with some of the best lines and all of a sudden... Same with the pilot. No way that was the original intent. That's my guess anyway. From what I've read the reshoots more than doubled the effects shots planned. So to me that says Disney decided to hell with the crew comraderie dirty dozen stuff, let's get them out of the way and add squadrons, dead actors, and a big space battle and NEEDS MORE DEATH STAR. I mean what do they have planned for VIII, a Deatherer Star? Or Death STARS (my bet, multiple).

They're so scared to change the plot for fear of making one billion less dollars than the umpteen they've already made (possibly $8 BILLION from Force Awakens alone).

[finsup]

I think those are fair points. The biggest problem i have with these new episodes is disney refusing to be original.

Here's the problem I have with directors and writers trying to be [too]original.  Sometimes, it is better left to the viewer's imagination what happens to certain characters - especially iconic characters.  Too often we have seen "original" and have it come as a major disappointment.  Phelps - for entire seasons, he is the epitome of the cold war struggle between West and East, between Good vs. Evil.  but in Mission: Impossible, Phelps turns out to be some kind of traitor?

Ripley and Newt:  Thank you very much but after Aliens II, I'd rather think about the fates of those two characters on my own.

Star Trek:  Take your pick.  The death of Kirk.  C'mon.  The audiences (and Kirk) deserve better.  I don't need some half-baked director (probably literally) spelling out Kirk's fate.  Same goes for the planet Vulcan. - Talk about turning the Star Trek universe on its head!  Are we supposed to believe in Vulcan from Star Trek IV or Star Trek (2009) with its idiotic alternative timeline?

I don't need directors and writers taking creativity to the nth degree - not when Lore becomes its victim.  You can't color too far outside of the lines with something like Rogue One.  After all, a New Hope is already upon us at the end of this movie.

Personally, I am just fine with Rogue One.  It fits perfectly as 3.9 in the film legend.  As far as CGI goes, yes, we know how the story ends, but I am just fine with Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher as represented.  They are an integral part of the story - and it fits the timeline seamlessly. Instead of bashing CGI here, why not stand back and take a moment at how far technology in cinema has come?

[gene9p]

I did..and please explain how Rogue One has"SOUL"...........

[Folsom]

I think the Rogue trailers hinted at more of a Magnificent Seven/Seven Samurai kind of feel (which would make sense in a way since Kurosawa was a big influence on Lucas for A New Hope). If anything they emphasized Urso's character more with the reshoots. The way the film dispatches with the crew is so clumsy you know there was more footage there. I mean what happens with the robot K2SO was so out of the blue. GREAT character with some of the best lines and all of a sudden... Same with the pilot. No way that was the original intent. That's my guess anyway. From what I've read the reshoots more than doubled the effects shots planned. So to me that says Disney decided to hell with the crew comraderie dirty dozen stuff, let's get them out of the way and add squadrons, dead actors, and a big space battle and NEEDS MORE DEATH STAR.

I admit I'd like for the movie to be longer and have more comradery between the people, or something. A little closer to M7 would be just fine with me. It does seem like they could have played that up some.

[wushuliu]

I did..and please explain how Rogue One has"SOUL"...........

Lol. Ok. I’ll indulge. I said if Force Awakens has heart, then Rogue has soul. And I made the association with the jedis and the force.

soul
sōl/
noun
noun: soul; plural noun: souls
1.   1.
the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
o   a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity.
"in the depths of her soul, she knew he would betray her"
synonyms:   spirit, psyche, (inner) self, inner being, life force, vital force; More
individuality, makeup, subconscious, anima;
pneuma;
atman
"seeing the soul through the eyes"
o   emotional or intellectual energy or intensity, especially as revealed in a work of art or an artistic performance.
"their interpretation lacked soul"
synonyms:   inspiration, feeling, emotion, passion, animation, intensity, fervor, ardor, enthusiasm, warmth, energy, vitality, spirit
"their music lacked soul"
2.   2.
the essence or embodiment of a specified quality.
"he was the soul of discretion"
synonyms:   embodiment, personification, incarnation, epitome, quintessence, essence; More


You don’t have to be a Star Wars fanatic to know that belief in the Force has a spiritual component. It’s not just
An ability to be badass. Force Awakens focused on the force as a weapon or tool in the service of the good. Rogue focuses on the Force as a belief And state of mind; a source of inspiration, life force and personal expression as embodied by the Donnie Yen's character. Literally every definition provided above.

You know – SOUL.

[wushuliu]

Interesting read: http://collider.com/rogue-one-reshoots-scenes-extended-cut/#john-gilroy

There goes my theory. If that interview is true then Rogue One wasn't compromised by reshoots but by the fact that the movie was assembled like an actual product, with the story and dialogue being tertiary behind fx and editing to fit a certain running time. You can almost hear the gasp of surprise that the film came out as well as it did.

This is where I have to give kudos to Marvel for still putting story first, even though they are just as focused on being a merchandising machine.

[RDavidson]

Instead of bashing CGI here, why not stand back and take a moment at how far technology in cinema has come?

I'm not sure anyone bashed the CGI as much they just didn't like it for whatever reason. There's a difference between bashing and stating an opinion. For the record, I said it was "impressive" despite my issues with it. Now, so you understand why I was pretty critical of it, I'm an industrial designer and I minored in theater and film. If something looks off, especially in this instance where we have human characters interacting with what are meant to be other human characters (that don't look 100% natural for various reasons) it ruins the immersive factor for me. It's as though the "trick" isn't working anymore because I can see the cards up the magician's sleeve. Others, less critical than I, will be OK with it. I will be appreciative of the technology when I can't tell the difference between real and fake. I will say, however, that the CGI "humans" in Rogue One blur the difference better than anything I've seen before. My wife didn't detect it, if that's any sign. I'm sure others wouldn't / didn't detect it either.

[Rob Babcock]

I felt there wasn't really much character development.  Jyn went from not giving a crap about the rebellion to going all-in (for reasons I won't spoil) instantly.  The other characters seem to just be the actions that needed taken, not fleshed out people.  A notable exception would be Donnie Yen and his friend (name escapes me).  They seem to have a fully integrated backstory that is easy to read in their banter.  But Jyn and the male lead seem to bond because the movie requires them to, not because of anything organic.  So much of the film feels rushed to me, maybe in an effort to shoehorn things into the canon.  Now I can understand the reshoots- maybe they did have original ideas but Disney needed product, not art.

I didn't like the way that [I felt] they basically took the Rebels and the Empire and dumped them onto the streets of Bagdad.  Who wants IEDs and roadside bombs in Star Wars?  To me it seemed like they dumped the high fantasy approach in favor of Yet Another Gritty Reboot.  Man, I hate that trend! The Dark Knight was huge so every DC outing had to be dark and gritty henceforth, even when it make so damned sense (eg Man of Steel).

CGI is awesome, at least when used for things it's good for.  If this is as good as CGI can get right now (and given the budget I imagine it is) then the technology is simply not ready to replace a human actor. Sure, it's amazing when doing apes, ents, dragons, etc but every time I have seen it used to recreate an known actor it's careened into the Uncanny Valley.  Just look at this film, Tron, Iron Man, etc.  CGI worked very well to put Chris Evans' face onto a spindly body but that's probably because the face (especially the eyes) didn't need to be recreated.

Of course then we get into the ethics of the situation.  Is it cool to reanimate long dead actors?  Will it be okay to bring Fisher back in a couple years?  Perhaps if their estates approve but the deceased obviously aren't able to consent.  Should be do another Casablanca with a digital Bogey?

The films wasn't a colossal failure but IMO the tone didn't really fit with the original films.  Perhaps the next one will suit me better...I'm eager to see a female Jedi tearing it up!

[charmerci]

For those who are wondering how original Dis"nay" is going to be -


SPOILER ALERT


- aren't all the main characters/actors (outside of Luke/Mark) now dead?

It getting kind of hard to see how they can rehash any storylines from this point - though I imagine I'll get a number of responses from you guys!

Aren't there like hundreds of SW stories out there without the Emporer/Darth/Luke?

At this point, I think Disnay can move on.

[wushuliu]

For those who are wondering how original Dis"nay" is going to be -


SPOILER ALERT


- aren't all the main characters/actors (outside of Luke/Mark) now dead?

It getting kind of hard to see how they can rehash any storylines from this point - though I imagine I'll get a number of responses from you guys!

Aren't there like hundreds of SW stories out there without the Emporer/Darth/Luke?

At this point, I think Disnay can move on.

Too much money at stake. They were willing to bring back Cushing and young Carrie Fisher. I can almost guarantee they will do the same for Alec Guinness. I'm betting the next episode mirrors Empire Strikes Back with Luke taking Yoda role and someone pulling the equivalent of 'I am your father'.