I know, and we are all praying and hoping that ep 8 will be significantly better than ep 7. Btw what is you opinion on ep7? do you think it was better than rogue 1?
I'd rank them as follows from best to worst imo:
R1
V
IV
VI
VII
III
Rebels
TCW
I
II
As you can see I actually enjoyed R1 and find it the best of the bunch. Were you solely disappointed in the acting talent, or was it something else?
Rogue one relied on nostalgia and familiar imagery to engage the audience. Every single thing that was good about it was only good because it was ripped directly out of the original trilogy. It didnt bring anything new to the saga.
The characters in rogue one were one dimensional at best and merely vessels for the story and script. In the original trilogy and TFA, we see how relationships between characters grow and evolve and we care about them. Since we know who they are, what their motivations are, and whats at stake for them, we care about the action sequences and are drawn in. In rogue one, we have to be told how characters act instead of showing us who they are.
Rogue one was far more complicated and cluttered than it had to be. The plot is simple: rebel spys steal the plans to the death star. But the first 30 minutes is spent planet hopping trying to introduce us to all these different characters and plot points instead of focusing on and following a main character's adventure. While im ok with the writers trying something darker, im not ok with them taking away that sense of wonder and adventure that keeps us engaged.
I could go on, but for now, if you have a rebuttal, please be specific and ill respond with enthusiasm.
"Every single thing that was good about it was only good because it was ripped directly out of the original trilogy."
I respectfully disagree. In none of the original trilogy films did EVERYONE die. All the main heroes. That's completely new for Star Wars.
While i respect the writer's decision to kill everyone off rather than come up with some needlessly complicated scenario where certain characters survive in a way that explains them never being mentioned later on, i dont think it made the movie any better. The emotion of the scene went completely over my head because i didnt care at all about any of the characters. Good music and pretty shots couldn't save what i thought was an ineffective set of moments. The only reason i would have cared at all about any of the characters is out of a sense of obligation due to them being *main characters* who we're told to like and empathize with.
Rogue One suffered because it worshipped star wars instead of truely valuing what makes it unique and popular. Star Wars should innovate. For example, when Empire was made, AT-ATs weren't intended to be the iconic symbols they are now, the writers just needed a big bad machine to destroy the rebel base and show that the empire was still powerful. The fans made AT-ATs what they are now and Rogue One exploited that instead of bringing new things to the table and innovating.
People dont love star wars the way we do only because of the flamboyant action set pieces and flashing lights. Every movie nowadays can deliver that. We love star wars because we love and empathize with the characters and their adventures. The spectacle only means anything because we're invested and we give a ****. The only reason people are going nuts over Rogue One is because it reminds us of the great stuff in the original films.
I suppose that on its own doesn't necessarily make rogue one a bad movie (however there are many things about it that do), but if all you want is nostalgia exploiting crap that doesn't enhance the saga, then go watch a fan-made movie.
My turn. Thus was the first star wars movie made for a mature audience. Oh you can say Revenge of the Sith because it had the PG-13 rating but really thats what it was a teen's movie. All 8 theatrical releases have been for the younger audiences. None of the films before Rogue One were geared specifically to older fans. This one is. Here are five reasons why I think Rogue one is great:
1. It reinforces why the first Star Wars was one of the most significant releases of all time. This movie was made from one line in A New Hope's opening Scroll. "The first victory of the rebellion". So going into the movie I expected a real battle. None of the silly skirmishes like we see in Rebels cartoon but a real battle. And they delivered. The shot where we fly in inside the cockpit of an xwing was a phenominal sequence. The explosions werent overkill as in TFA and there was a real sense of urgency in the mission. It did all this without relying on nostalgia.
2. The characters. Oh you can complain about the setup which was quick but tasteful or the fact they all bit the dust, but this isn't your typical star wars film. This is a black ops mission. Unsanctioned. If you went in expecting characters to survive you only have yourself to blame for that disappointment. The main character is the rebellion not the individuals. And we see just how close she came to dying before her first big triumph. This movie has a similar feel to Saving Private Ryan. Where private Ryan is the death star plans.
3. No plot holes. Try. I mean it. There arent any. You can nitpick but there is explinations for any supposed plot holes people have proposed. I have yet to see one plot hole that cannot be debunked. They created a seemless story. A New Hope just became a 5hour movie, with Luke's story beginning in the middle.
4. No ewoks or Jar Jar or whiny halfsith - every character makes sense. There are no bad ones. And no overacting. It was well written and well scripted. Even the cameos by certain cantina chaps and a couple Rebels characters were tasteful rather than relying on nostalgia. Each alien was well crafted. Us lucky folk playing swgoh know Bistans name. Speaking of, how cool were those U-wings? Reminded me of the first time I saw a B-wing open its foils.
5. It was made for us. The 25-60+ crowd. They called a rebel an extremist. Another rebel took the life of an informant. It expanded the view of the rebellion for many folk who had never thought the rebellion could be anything but good. But just as the Jedi accepted slavery(clones) to try and do good, the rebellion at times must do evil to defeat greater evil. Not everyone can be Jedi Luke.
I'd like to here specific reasons why you dislike the film. I think it belongs with A new Hope and Empire strikes back as top 3.
@DarthLucaz
I think rogue one (especially the battle you liked so much) absolutely relied on nostalia to be effective. I agree that it looked great, but if everybody seeing the movie hadn't seen A New Hope, i really dont think it would have had the same sense of urgency. Personally all i could think of during the last ten minutes was A New Hope, and as soon as I got home, i popped it in the VCR and watched the beginning again just to see how seemless it was. Again, this on its own doesn't make rogue one a bad movie, but all it does is remind you of how great a New Hope is without really bringing anything new and memorable.
I really struggle to like a movie or care about whats happening if i don't know or care about the characters. The original characters had so much depth and personality, every scene they were in was engaging, regardless of whether it was an action scene, a plain dialogue scene or both. I challenge you describe Cassian, Jyn, or Baze's character without naming anything related to their job, the plot, or anything star wars related. If any of them had any personality, we never saw anything to describe that because we were too busy planet hopping and trying to introduce another character or another plot point. Cassian and Baze in particular could have been entirely cut out of the movie, and nothing would change.
You compared this movie to Saving Private Ryan, but even SPR had likable characters that we cared about. Making a grim movie about war isnt an excuse to write generic bland characters. I really dont care that they all died, and thats the problem. I should care. When i first heard they were making a movie about the spys(?) that steal the plans, i was excited for the death toll because star wars has always lacked tragedy (except the tragedy of garbage movies). But i was completely underwhelmed.
Plot hole: in a New Hope, Leia insists that she is on a diplomatic mission to Alderaan. Vader insists that her ship intercepted secret confidential plans that belong to the Empire. Either Leia is an **** to think that she can convince Vader that he literally did not just see her fly away from Scarif, or the writers made the worst mistake possible: screw up the opening crawl of a New Hope.
Minor plot hole that doesnt really matter but still bugs me: how the hell did those guys from mos eisley get off of jedha before it blew up? They likely didnt flee when the death star showed up because nobody knew what it was. And why the hell were they in the movie in the first place? Almost as **** as throwing r2 and 3po in just to say they're in all the movies.
Inconsistency: its implied that Jyn is some sort of rebellious person who resists authority. She's got that cheezy line in the teaser saying how she rebels and we briefly see her in an imperial prison for some reason (also, didnt saw abandon her so that wouldnt happen?) but we never see her do anything that would make her slightly rebellious. All she does is give cheezy optomistic monologues about hope that instantly change everybody's mind about going on suicide missions. If thats what you meant about it appealing to adults, well you lost me there.
Also, that scene between vader and krennic should be cut completely from the movie. That scene had absolutely no purpose other than to add a painfully Christensen-like pun that took away from the wonderful vader scene at the end. Imagine if the first time we see vader in the movie was when he ignites his saber the way he did. That is how you should reveal the most iconic villian of all time.
In conclusion: i think we have different standards for what makes Star Wars, Star Wars. For me its about following likeable, consistent characters on big expansive adventures that innovates on preceding material. If none of that is there, if the movie is made up of bland, shallow characters simply going from big action set piece to the next, then its no better than the prequels. Star Wars is about more than the spectacle and "that one really cool shot" because any and every movie does that nowadays. Star Wars is above that.
Rogue one relied on nostalgia and familiar imagery to engage the audience. Every single thing that was good about it was only good because it was ripped directly out of the original trilogy. It didnt bring anything new to the saga.
The characters in rogue one were one dimensional at best and merely vessels for the story and script. In the original trilogy and TFA, we see how relationships between characters grow and evolve and we care about them. Since we know who they are, what their motivations are, and whats at stake for them, we care about the action sequences and are drawn in. In rogue one, we have to be told how characters act instead of showing us who they are.
Rogue one was far more complicated and cluttered than it had to be. The plot is simple: rebel spys steal the plans to the death star. But the first 30 minutes is spent planet hopping trying to introduce us to all these different characters and plot points instead of focusing on and following a main character's adventure. While im ok with the writers trying something darker, im not ok with them taking away that sense of wonder and adventure that keeps us engaged.
I could go on, but for now, if you have a rebuttal, please be specific and ill respond with enthusiasm.
TFA relied on nostalgia much more than Rogue One did.
In case you don't remember, this is supposed to take place right before Episode 4, so of course there will be a bunch of nostalgia. This is a solo movie, and won't be a trilogy, so the characters will be underdeveloped compared to TFA.
Let's compare this to TFA, in terms of "character development":
Rey: Has no backstory whatsoever, and somehow became amazing in the force
Finn: Some random stormtrooper who was a janitor or something
Kylo Ren: Just gets angry a bunch.
This movie was meant to be darker and isn't supposed to have the same feeling as something like ANH, which is all supposed to be nice and happy. This is a war-based grim movie, and its main purpose was not the rebels and those individuals, but rather more of a backstory as to the war as a whole with things like the empire's force.
Now since you want so much about the characters, would you rather have an hour of "Character Development" that the prequels had in something like AOTC? Where Anakin and Padme do absolutely nothing until the end of the movie? Do you want some long story about Cassian instead of a battle scene? They can't do everything in a movie.
Most people did like this movie by far because it was different than the other ones. Everyone has their preferences, but Disney had to take this step to show that they didn't completely kid down star wars and ruin it (with things like rebels). You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are missing the purpose of this movie.
While TFA certainly has plenty of issues with rehashing old stuff, the fact that you can call one of its characters angry already says a lot. The characters in TFA have exactly that: character. It doesn't take back story to show who a person is. You can show who a person is by their dialogue, their decisions, and their interactions with other people. In a 10 minute sequence in TFA, Poe and Finn develop a friendship thats as obvious as that of Luke and Han's in ROTJ. We know who Kylo Ren is and how he acts from his violent outbursts. Like them or not, you can describe these characters to someone who has never seen star wars. Finn is morally driven who is willing to resist authority if it means doing the right thing. Rey is adventurous and longs for a family and a purpose. Kylo Ren faces great internal conflict, is lost and confused, and has a strong desire for direction and meaning in his life. These characters make decisions that only they could make.
Rogue One lacks all of this. You could swap everyone's dialogue or roles in the story and it wouldn't change anything. None of them show any emotion or conflict. They don't make decisions and they only do what the story needs them to do to get to the next big action sequence. I challenge you to characterize Cassian, Baze, Chirrut, or Jyn the same way as I can with the characters from TFA.
I'm curious to see what in AOTC could be considered "character development" because I didn't think it had any. Character development doesn't have to be dialogue, boring or otherwise. Look at Empire. Han decides to stay in the wilderness of Hoth overnight because he cares for luke and would risk his life to save him. Luke does the same thing when he leaves Dagobah. In A New Hope, while luke and co. are running around the Death Star, they're yelling at each other, criticizing each other, and we see how they interact and because of that, we know what their personalities are.
Most of this can be summed up like this: We should be shown these things not told.
We have to be told that Jyn is rebellious by nature even though we never see anything supporting that. If we weren't explicitly told that she and Saw had some *apparently* complicated relationship, we would have no idea that they care at all about each other. Because once he dies, nobody shows any remorse, the plot just keeps going. The same is true for Baze and Chirrut. They have to keep repeating how much they mean to each other because we don't see any sort of friendship or partnership. Do Han and Chewy have to keep repeating how good of friends they are? or Han and Luke? No, because we are shown it.
I can be very short about my disagreement here:
1. Chirrut Îmwe
2. Baze Malbus
Describe their personalities
They don't need these cliche personality traits. This is a war movie not a magical adventure.
I'd say r1 was alright imo. My gf hates star wars. She thinks its nerdy and lame. However r1 is the only one of the films she would even watch. That puts it pretty high on my list.
Did not enjoy Rogue One - one of the worst Star Wars movies in history! Tremendous disappointment! No talent!
#CloneHelmets4Life...VICTORY!!!! "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere." The more you tighten your grip, CG/EA, the more whales will slip through your fingers (and go F2P or quit).
I can be very short about my disagreement here:
1. Chirrut Îmwe
2. Baze Malbus
Describe their personalities
Chirrut: Trusts the Force wholeheartedly. Believes everyone has a purpose.
Baze: Going through the motions, not really caring about his life. Feels betrayed because he's spent his whole life protecting the Jedi Temple, but it was all for naught. Only his friendship/loyalty for Chirrut keeps him going.
#CloneHelmets4Life...VICTORY!!!! "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere." The more you tighten your grip, CG/EA, the more whales will slip through your fingers (and go F2P or quit).
I can be very short about my disagreement here:
1. Chirrut Îmwe
2. Baze Malbus
Describe their personalities
They don't need these cliche personality traits. This is a war movie not a magical adventure.
I'd say r1 was alright imo. My gf hates star wars. She thinks its nerdy and lame. However r1 is the only one of the films she would even watch. That puts it pretty high on my list.
(Good) War movies still have developed characters. Thats why we care
Edit: imo bland, boring characters are pretty cliché
Pffff, not even gonna try talking about things I know close to nothing about. I'm not a psychologist, nor am I a writer.
Thanks for proving my point
Okay this is outright bullying. If you think they lack in character, then why don't YOU try and prove it.
Now then, so if people love certain movie/book/fictional characters but can't explain why, that makes said characters instantly "flat"? Just because an audience member fails to recognize all or some of a character's personality traits, those personality traits are nonexistent? Or let's reverse roles: because you didn't like any character of a certain something, this automatically means that NONE of the characters have ANY depth, and no-one is allowed to like them within the bounds of reason? Because one sole member of an audience isn't able or willing to acknowledge or like something then nobody can?
Well then, that's a good block of defensive writing there, and that's all on you for trying to pull such a cheap move.
Back to serious. Me liking the movie is my right, just as much as it's yours to dislike something or all of it. I merely said the "Chinese Bros" were the thing I liked most, not that they're straight out of a James Joyce novel, as I lack the knowledge to back that last statement.
P.S. I must admit that I initially missed the joke in the OP. It rang a bell, but couldn't quite put my finger on it. Props!
Proud and Belgian officer of [DTA] BIER DTA | official Lando Calrissian fanboy KappaPride
TFA also has the advantage of being part 1 in a 3 part series. R1 doesn't have that luxury, and it has a huge story to tell in a short time while setting up an immediately-following 38 year old film.
The field of battle is like the mongoose. Slow to joviality, but thirsty for morning sunshine.
-Sun Tzu
Pffff, not even gonna try talking about things I know close to nothing about. I'm not a psychologist, nor am I a writer.
Thanks for proving my point
Okay this is outright bullying. If you think they lack in character, then why don't YOU try and prove it.
Now then, so if people love certain movie/book/fictional characters but can't explain why, that makes said characters instantly "flat"? Just because an audience member fails to recognize all or some of a character's personality traits, those personality traits are nonexistent? Or let's reverse roles: because you didn't like any character of a certain something, this automatically means that NONE of the characters have ANY depth, and no-one is allowed to like them within the bounds of reason? Because one sole member of an audience isn't able or willing to acknowledge or like something then nobody can?
Well then, that's a good block of defensive writing there, and that's all on you for trying to pull such a cheap move.
Back to serious. Me liking the movie is my right, just as much as it's yours to dislike something or all of it. I merely said the "Chinese Bros" were the thing I liked most, not that they're straight out of a James Joyce novel, as I lack the knowledge to back that last statement.
P.S. I must admit that I initially missed the joke in the OP. It rang a bell, but couldn't quite put my finger on it. Props!
I apologize if i came off as offensive. I only meant that the best characters from star wars can be easily described regardless of your knowledge of star wars lore. Han is the arrogant rogue with a heart of gold. Leia is a reluctant damsel in distress who doesn't let people walk over her. C-3PO is prissy, overly cautious, and a bit self absorbed. Even characters like chewy and r2 who dont have dialogue have personalities. When any of these characters say or do something, it makes sense that they would do so. It would sound strange if luke ever said, "Either im going to kill her or im beginning to like her" or if 3PO said, "well somebodys got to save our skins. into the garbage, fly-boy!".
In my admittedly not-so-humble opinion, not enough of the characters from rogue one can be characterized this way. If you can't think of even a single word to describe a character's personality (han: self-centered, R2: attitude, tarkin: cold, kylo ren: whiny, etc), then i dont think they're a well written character. If you have trouble identifying a character's personality, then i think that proves my point.
Sure, not everyone has to agree with me, but i thought it was obvious that i was intentionally inviting some debate with this post. And if i think your arguments aren't solid, ill say so; and i expect you to do the same to me.
Again, i apologize if my arguments felt directed at you personally (that was not my intention), but i will defend my opinions as much as I can.
Edit: if the only word that comes to your mind when describing chirrut and baze is "Chinese", then there are some serious issues.
TFA also has the advantage of being part 1 in a 3 part series. R1 doesn't have that luxury, and it has a huge story to tell in a short time while setting up an immediately-following 38 year old film.
I agree. Which is why i think many characters and extra scenes should have been cut out. R1 was far more cluttered and complicated than it had to be. The plot should have been linear and straight forward: rebel spys steal the plans to the death star. But the writers crammed way too much in and sacrificed characters with depth and a cohesive story.
I read Catalyst which serves as a prequel to Rogue One. It follows mostly Jyn's parents and Krennic. So i went into the theatre with a bit more backstory than your average moviegoer. For me Krennic, Jyn, and Galen were already fleshed out. Even Saw had a bit more meat for me. But the others were still brand new. As far as the other characters that didnt appear in the book but did appear in the movie, I tend to disagree that they weren't dynamic enough.
1. Cassian - he's actually the one I thought they fleshed out the most. He's a spymaster, willing to do evil deeds in order to keep his people safe. Willing to lay his life on the line at any moment. He didnt need any backstory beyond that. To me knowing he was 007 in Star Wars or maybe Bourne. A character who's past is unnecessary to know what he is capable of.
2. Chirrut - he is my favorite character from the movies. A man, crippled in the empires eyes, force sensitive, but ignored by the groups of hunters due to his blindness and lack of a teacher. He obviously studied deeply with Baze's help the teachings of a padawan. It is his belief in the force that wins the day. His backstory is implied through subtle remarks and actions and easy to miss. I've seen the movie 5 times and notice something new about Chirrut each time.
3. Baze - here i agree. He is confusing. Chirrut's guide. An older man, weak in the force, but once a faithful Guardian from another time. Where Chirruts faith in the force is sound Baze's is broken. Even more subtle than chirrut but still there and enough.
4. The Pilot - i didnt need to know him, to me he was a minor character with a little more than minor role.
They fleshed out Tarkin a bit more and showed what Clone Wars fans already know about the Mon Calamari, theyre one of the most honorable species in the Galaxy and from before the destruction of the first death star til its end an integral part of the rebellion.
This movie wasnt about the characters it was about the story. And it was one hell of a story. Yeah i didnt really care when the characters died, but i went in hoping they would for integrity sake. So I got what I expected.
Rouge One was OK, but it didn't live up to my expectations. It was draggy for too long. The rebel characters, aside from K-2, were kind of lame. I couldn't really identify with any of them. The C3PO and R2D2 scene was totally superfluous.
I do appreciate that it was darker than the normal Star Wars movie. Probably the grittiest of all the movies. None of those garbage Ewok or Gungan characters. The characters from the cantina were fine. They could have been on there way out when she bumped into him. I liked the battle scenes, Vader crushing rebels, and how it tied into the original (including the fact that they all died).
Of course the final scene made Leia's line that they were on a diplomatic mission utterly ridiculous. Clearly they barely escaped an imperial attack with the death star plans. They would be known fugitives of the empire at that point. That would be the big hole in the plot.
The last 10 minutes of R1 was really the only enjoyable part for me. Can we all agree that episode lll should have been just like that? Vader going apefudge on jedi for an entire movie?
Intergalactic space slugs are recruiting. Pm me if interested in entering the slug life. ~°° ♡
Replies
It's interesting how exactly half of the star wars movies that have been made are garbage
I'd rank them as follows from best to worst imo:
R1
V
IV
VI
VII
III
Rebels
TCW
I
II
As you can see I actually enjoyed R1 and find it the best of the bunch. Were you solely disappointed in the acting talent, or was it something else?
The characters in rogue one were one dimensional at best and merely vessels for the story and script. In the original trilogy and TFA, we see how relationships between characters grow and evolve and we care about them. Since we know who they are, what their motivations are, and whats at stake for them, we care about the action sequences and are drawn in. In rogue one, we have to be told how characters act instead of showing us who they are.
Rogue one was far more complicated and cluttered than it had to be. The plot is simple: rebel spys steal the plans to the death star. But the first 30 minutes is spent planet hopping trying to introduce us to all these different characters and plot points instead of focusing on and following a main character's adventure. While im ok with the writers trying something darker, im not ok with them taking away that sense of wonder and adventure that keeps us engaged.
I could go on, but for now, if you have a rebuttal, please be specific and ill respond with enthusiasm.
I respectfully disagree. In none of the original trilogy films did EVERYONE die. All the main heroes. That's completely new for Star Wars.
-Sun Tzu
While i respect the writer's decision to kill everyone off rather than come up with some needlessly complicated scenario where certain characters survive in a way that explains them never being mentioned later on, i dont think it made the movie any better. The emotion of the scene went completely over my head because i didnt care at all about any of the characters. Good music and pretty shots couldn't save what i thought was an ineffective set of moments. The only reason i would have cared at all about any of the characters is out of a sense of obligation due to them being *main characters* who we're told to like and empathize with.
Rogue One suffered because it worshipped star wars instead of truely valuing what makes it unique and popular. Star Wars should innovate. For example, when Empire was made, AT-ATs weren't intended to be the iconic symbols they are now, the writers just needed a big bad machine to destroy the rebel base and show that the empire was still powerful. The fans made AT-ATs what they are now and Rogue One exploited that instead of bringing new things to the table and innovating.
People dont love star wars the way we do only because of the flamboyant action set pieces and flashing lights. Every movie nowadays can deliver that. We love star wars because we love and empathize with the characters and their adventures. The spectacle only means anything because we're invested and we give a ****. The only reason people are going nuts over Rogue One is because it reminds us of the great stuff in the original films.
I suppose that on its own doesn't necessarily make rogue one a bad movie (however there are many things about it that do), but if all you want is nostalgia exploiting crap that doesn't enhance the saga, then go watch a fan-made movie.
1. It reinforces why the first Star Wars was one of the most significant releases of all time. This movie was made from one line in A New Hope's opening Scroll. "The first victory of the rebellion". So going into the movie I expected a real battle. None of the silly skirmishes like we see in Rebels cartoon but a real battle. And they delivered. The shot where we fly in inside the cockpit of an xwing was a phenominal sequence. The explosions werent overkill as in TFA and there was a real sense of urgency in the mission. It did all this without relying on nostalgia.
2. The characters. Oh you can complain about the setup which was quick but tasteful or the fact they all bit the dust, but this isn't your typical star wars film. This is a black ops mission. Unsanctioned. If you went in expecting characters to survive you only have yourself to blame for that disappointment. The main character is the rebellion not the individuals. And we see just how close she came to dying before her first big triumph. This movie has a similar feel to Saving Private Ryan. Where private Ryan is the death star plans.
3. No plot holes. Try. I mean it. There arent any. You can nitpick but there is explinations for any supposed plot holes people have proposed. I have yet to see one plot hole that cannot be debunked. They created a seemless story. A New Hope just became a 5hour movie, with Luke's story beginning in the middle.
4. No ewoks or Jar Jar or whiny halfsith - every character makes sense. There are no bad ones. And no overacting. It was well written and well scripted. Even the cameos by certain cantina chaps and a couple Rebels characters were tasteful rather than relying on nostalgia. Each alien was well crafted. Us lucky folk playing swgoh know Bistans name. Speaking of, how cool were those U-wings? Reminded me of the first time I saw a B-wing open its foils.
5. It was made for us. The 25-60+ crowd. They called a rebel an extremist. Another rebel took the life of an informant. It expanded the view of the rebellion for many folk who had never thought the rebellion could be anything but good. But just as the Jedi accepted slavery(clones) to try and do good, the rebellion at times must do evil to defeat greater evil. Not everyone can be Jedi Luke.
I'd like to here specific reasons why you dislike the film. I think it belongs with A new Hope and Empire strikes back as top 3.
I think rogue one (especially the battle you liked so much) absolutely relied on nostalia to be effective. I agree that it looked great, but if everybody seeing the movie hadn't seen A New Hope, i really dont think it would have had the same sense of urgency. Personally all i could think of during the last ten minutes was A New Hope, and as soon as I got home, i popped it in the VCR and watched the beginning again just to see how seemless it was. Again, this on its own doesn't make rogue one a bad movie, but all it does is remind you of how great a New Hope is without really bringing anything new and memorable.
I really struggle to like a movie or care about whats happening if i don't know or care about the characters. The original characters had so much depth and personality, every scene they were in was engaging, regardless of whether it was an action scene, a plain dialogue scene or both. I challenge you describe Cassian, Jyn, or Baze's character without naming anything related to their job, the plot, or anything star wars related. If any of them had any personality, we never saw anything to describe that because we were too busy planet hopping and trying to introduce another character or another plot point. Cassian and Baze in particular could have been entirely cut out of the movie, and nothing would change.
You compared this movie to Saving Private Ryan, but even SPR had likable characters that we cared about. Making a grim movie about war isnt an excuse to write generic bland characters. I really dont care that they all died, and thats the problem. I should care. When i first heard they were making a movie about the spys(?) that steal the plans, i was excited for the death toll because star wars has always lacked tragedy (except the tragedy of garbage movies). But i was completely underwhelmed.
Plot hole: in a New Hope, Leia insists that she is on a diplomatic mission to Alderaan. Vader insists that her ship intercepted secret confidential plans that belong to the Empire. Either Leia is an **** to think that she can convince Vader that he literally did not just see her fly away from Scarif, or the writers made the worst mistake possible: screw up the opening crawl of a New Hope.
Minor plot hole that doesnt really matter but still bugs me: how the hell did those guys from mos eisley get off of jedha before it blew up? They likely didnt flee when the death star showed up because nobody knew what it was. And why the hell were they in the movie in the first place? Almost as **** as throwing r2 and 3po in just to say they're in all the movies.
Inconsistency: its implied that Jyn is some sort of rebellious person who resists authority. She's got that cheezy line in the teaser saying how she rebels and we briefly see her in an imperial prison for some reason (also, didnt saw abandon her so that wouldnt happen?) but we never see her do anything that would make her slightly rebellious. All she does is give cheezy optomistic monologues about hope that instantly change everybody's mind about going on suicide missions. If thats what you meant about it appealing to adults, well you lost me there.
Also, that scene between vader and krennic should be cut completely from the movie. That scene had absolutely no purpose other than to add a painfully Christensen-like pun that took away from the wonderful vader scene at the end. Imagine if the first time we see vader in the movie was when he ignites his saber the way he did. That is how you should reveal the most iconic villian of all time.
In conclusion: i think we have different standards for what makes Star Wars, Star Wars. For me its about following likeable, consistent characters on big expansive adventures that innovates on preceding material. If none of that is there, if the movie is made up of bland, shallow characters simply going from big action set piece to the next, then its no better than the prequels. Star Wars is about more than the spectacle and "that one really cool shot" because any and every movie does that nowadays. Star Wars is above that.
1. Chirrut Îmwe
2. Baze Malbus
Describe their personalities
TFA relied on nostalgia much more than Rogue One did.
In case you don't remember, this is supposed to take place right before Episode 4, so of course there will be a bunch of nostalgia. This is a solo movie, and won't be a trilogy, so the characters will be underdeveloped compared to TFA.
Let's compare this to TFA, in terms of "character development":
Rey: Has no backstory whatsoever, and somehow became amazing in the force
Finn: Some random stormtrooper who was a janitor or something
Kylo Ren: Just gets angry a bunch.
This movie was meant to be darker and isn't supposed to have the same feeling as something like ANH, which is all supposed to be nice and happy. This is a war-based grim movie, and its main purpose was not the rebels and those individuals, but rather more of a backstory as to the war as a whole with things like the empire's force.
Now since you want so much about the characters, would you rather have an hour of "Character Development" that the prequels had in something like AOTC? Where Anakin and Padme do absolutely nothing until the end of the movie? Do you want some long story about Cassian instead of a battle scene? They can't do everything in a movie.
Most people did like this movie by far because it was different than the other ones. Everyone has their preferences, but Disney had to take this step to show that they didn't completely kid down star wars and ruin it (with things like rebels). You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are missing the purpose of this movie.
While TFA certainly has plenty of issues with rehashing old stuff, the fact that you can call one of its characters angry already says a lot. The characters in TFA have exactly that: character. It doesn't take back story to show who a person is. You can show who a person is by their dialogue, their decisions, and their interactions with other people. In a 10 minute sequence in TFA, Poe and Finn develop a friendship thats as obvious as that of Luke and Han's in ROTJ. We know who Kylo Ren is and how he acts from his violent outbursts. Like them or not, you can describe these characters to someone who has never seen star wars. Finn is morally driven who is willing to resist authority if it means doing the right thing. Rey is adventurous and longs for a family and a purpose. Kylo Ren faces great internal conflict, is lost and confused, and has a strong desire for direction and meaning in his life. These characters make decisions that only they could make.
Rogue One lacks all of this. You could swap everyone's dialogue or roles in the story and it wouldn't change anything. None of them show any emotion or conflict. They don't make decisions and they only do what the story needs them to do to get to the next big action sequence. I challenge you to characterize Cassian, Baze, Chirrut, or Jyn the same way as I can with the characters from TFA.
I'm curious to see what in AOTC could be considered "character development" because I didn't think it had any. Character development doesn't have to be dialogue, boring or otherwise. Look at Empire. Han decides to stay in the wilderness of Hoth overnight because he cares for luke and would risk his life to save him. Luke does the same thing when he leaves Dagobah. In A New Hope, while luke and co. are running around the Death Star, they're yelling at each other, criticizing each other, and we see how they interact and because of that, we know what their personalities are.
Most of this can be summed up like this: We should be shown these things not told.
We have to be told that Jyn is rebellious by nature even though we never see anything supporting that. If we weren't explicitly told that she and Saw had some *apparently* complicated relationship, we would have no idea that they care at all about each other. Because once he dies, nobody shows any remorse, the plot just keeps going. The same is true for Baze and Chirrut. They have to keep repeating how much they mean to each other because we don't see any sort of friendship or partnership. Do Han and Chewy have to keep repeating how good of friends they are? or Han and Luke? No, because we are shown it.
They don't need these cliche personality traits. This is a war movie not a magical adventure.
I'd say r1 was alright imo. My gf hates star wars. She thinks its nerdy and lame. However r1 is the only one of the films she would even watch. That puts it pretty high on my list.
Chirrut: Trusts the Force wholeheartedly. Believes everyone has a purpose.
Baze: Going through the motions, not really caring about his life. Feels betrayed because he's spent his whole life protecting the Jedi Temple, but it was all for naught. Only his friendship/loyalty for Chirrut keeps him going.
(Good) War movies still have developed characters. Thats why we care
Edit: imo bland, boring characters are pretty cliché
Glad somebody got the joke. Even if they disagree
Okay this is outright bullying. If you think they lack in character, then why don't YOU try and prove it.
Now then, so if people love certain movie/book/fictional characters but can't explain why, that makes said characters instantly "flat"? Just because an audience member fails to recognize all or some of a character's personality traits, those personality traits are nonexistent? Or let's reverse roles: because you didn't like any character of a certain something, this automatically means that NONE of the characters have ANY depth, and no-one is allowed to like them within the bounds of reason? Because one sole member of an audience isn't able or willing to acknowledge or like something then nobody can?
Well then, that's a good block of defensive writing there, and that's all on you for trying to pull such a cheap move.
Back to serious. Me liking the movie is my right, just as much as it's yours to dislike something or all of it. I merely said the "Chinese Bros" were the thing I liked most, not that they're straight out of a James Joyce novel, as I lack the knowledge to back that last statement.
P.S. I must admit that I initially missed the joke in the OP. It rang a bell, but couldn't quite put my finger on it. Props!
-Sun Tzu
I apologize if i came off as offensive. I only meant that the best characters from star wars can be easily described regardless of your knowledge of star wars lore. Han is the arrogant rogue with a heart of gold. Leia is a reluctant damsel in distress who doesn't let people walk over her. C-3PO is prissy, overly cautious, and a bit self absorbed. Even characters like chewy and r2 who dont have dialogue have personalities. When any of these characters say or do something, it makes sense that they would do so. It would sound strange if luke ever said, "Either im going to kill her or im beginning to like her" or if 3PO said, "well somebodys got to save our skins. into the garbage, fly-boy!".
In my admittedly not-so-humble opinion, not enough of the characters from rogue one can be characterized this way. If you can't think of even a single word to describe a character's personality (han: self-centered, R2: attitude, tarkin: cold, kylo ren: whiny, etc), then i dont think they're a well written character. If you have trouble identifying a character's personality, then i think that proves my point.
Sure, not everyone has to agree with me, but i thought it was obvious that i was intentionally inviting some debate with this post. And if i think your arguments aren't solid, ill say so; and i expect you to do the same to me.
Again, i apologize if my arguments felt directed at you personally (that was not my intention), but i will defend my opinions as much as I can.
Edit: if the only word that comes to your mind when describing chirrut and baze is "Chinese", then there are some serious issues.
I agree. Which is why i think many characters and extra scenes should have been cut out. R1 was far more cluttered and complicated than it had to be. The plot should have been linear and straight forward: rebel spys steal the plans to the death star. But the writers crammed way too much in and sacrificed characters with depth and a cohesive story.
You mean Force Awakens
1. Cassian - he's actually the one I thought they fleshed out the most. He's a spymaster, willing to do evil deeds in order to keep his people safe. Willing to lay his life on the line at any moment. He didnt need any backstory beyond that. To me knowing he was 007 in Star Wars or maybe Bourne. A character who's past is unnecessary to know what he is capable of.
2. Chirrut - he is my favorite character from the movies. A man, crippled in the empires eyes, force sensitive, but ignored by the groups of hunters due to his blindness and lack of a teacher. He obviously studied deeply with Baze's help the teachings of a padawan. It is his belief in the force that wins the day. His backstory is implied through subtle remarks and actions and easy to miss. I've seen the movie 5 times and notice something new about Chirrut each time.
3. Baze - here i agree. He is confusing. Chirrut's guide. An older man, weak in the force, but once a faithful Guardian from another time. Where Chirruts faith in the force is sound Baze's is broken. Even more subtle than chirrut but still there and enough.
4. The Pilot - i didnt need to know him, to me he was a minor character with a little more than minor role.
They fleshed out Tarkin a bit more and showed what Clone Wars fans already know about the Mon Calamari, theyre one of the most honorable species in the Galaxy and from before the destruction of the first death star til its end an integral part of the rebellion.
This movie wasnt about the characters it was about the story. And it was one hell of a story. Yeah i didnt really care when the characters died, but i went in hoping they would for integrity sake. So I got what I expected.
I do appreciate that it was darker than the normal Star Wars movie. Probably the grittiest of all the movies. None of those garbage Ewok or Gungan characters. The characters from the cantina were fine. They could have been on there way out when she bumped into him. I liked the battle scenes, Vader crushing rebels, and how it tied into the original (including the fact that they all died).
Of course the final scene made Leia's line that they were on a diplomatic mission utterly ridiculous. Clearly they barely escaped an imperial attack with the death star plans. They would be known fugitives of the empire at that point. That would be the big hole in the plot.