Star Wars: Rogue One *spoilers from post 1195*

Boskowski

e_e wrote: »

Problem?

No Problem in fact I kinda like it but we wouldn't want to make a habit out of it.

(It's Die Autobahn btw, yes its female don't ask me why)

Rob2D

Donnie Yen beating up Stormtroopers with a stick...........

ALL OF MY MONEY

e_e

Boskowski wrote: »

No Problem in fact I kinda like it but we wouldn't want to make a habit out of it.

Well why the **** not?

Wedwood

Just be grateful Zack Snyder didn't direct it.

PS: maybe those AT ATs are on Naboo about to obliterate Gungan City. 'Whosa are yousa ?'.........Boom !!!

Then the 'weesa freeee' bit can be deleted from the end of Return of the Jedi.

Boskowski

e_e wrote: »

Well why the **** not?

Maybe because wars are typically not fought by women? Like I said no problem only making a habit out of it would be, it would smell of doing it for the sake of it being the 'modern' thing to do.

david75

Boskowski wrote: »

Maybe because wars are typically not fought by women? Like I said no problem only making a habit out of it would be, it would smell of doing it for the sake of it being the 'modern' thing to do.

hey..we just rewrote our entire history and apparently mna na heireann actually won 1916 and nobody realised it until February this year..anything is possible..

Bowlardo

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Anyone else disappointed that their not going more toward a Guardians of the Galaxy type tone, a more irreverent and light hearted tale of a mismatched band of rebels on a suicide mission. The trailer to me suggests it's going to be identical in tone to Episode VII. Not a bad thing as such I was just expecting this to stand apart from the main episodes. I also have to say, though it's hard to judge based purely on the trailer, I found the main actresses delivery of lines to be very poor, certainly devoid of the charisma Rey had shown.

This times 100..she sounds ****.

e_e

Boskowski wrote: »

Maybe because wars are typically not fought by women?

...and wars don't involve spaceships and weird alien creatures either. Hasn't stopped them though has it?

Boskowski wrote: »

it would smell of doing it for the sake of it being the 'modern' thing to do.

It's only the modern thing to do in the sense that it gives creators a greater range of people to write and people who have been underserved by mainstream movies new characters to look up to and identify with. It not only makes good artistic sense but also financial one too, it's win win for me. The type of people who are angered (not saying you are btw) by this stuff can just get under the covers and sob tbh. They need to grow up and get out more.

Mourinho

I had hoped Mads Mikkelsen would get more of a bigger role, doesn't see like it so far, awful waste

Boskowski

Bowlardo wrote: »

This times 100..she sounds ****.

I can't say I find that and I definitely wouldn't want Star Wars to be turned into a veiled action comedy.

Keplar240B

FunLover18 wrote: »

Can someone explain the tactical advantages of the AT-ATs?

As far as I Can tell, they're slow, lumbering, not very manouverable with limited shooting range and every time I see them I wonder why anyone would design a military vehicle that can be tripped up. Is it just that they look cool?

Heavily armored and awe-inducing, the AT-AT positioned itself as the standard of Imperial firepower on the battlefield.
Due to their impressive appearance, it was used as much for psychological effect as for tactical reason.

When General Veers' walker fired upon the rebel power generator, at the climax of the Battle of Hoth, one of his crewmen estimated the range as 17.28km. This is not limited range!
Line-of-sight obstructions are the only practical limitation on the range of the AT-AT's guns, and the intrinsic range of the weapons is very much greater.

AT-AT walkers are essentially invulnerable to conventional artillery fire. Their hull surfaces absorb and dissipate blaster bolts without the vehicle feeling so much as a jolt. The AT-AT walkers are astonishingly resilient to enemy fire from the outside,

The top speed of an AT-AT is ut 60km/hr. Slow?

AT-AT walkers carry forty ground troops plus five speeder bikes.

david75

Bowlardo wrote: »

This times 100..she sounds ****.

This actress and character is forever going to be compared to rey and daisey ridley and she's going to come out the loser every time..

Boskowski

e_e wrote: »

It's only the modern thing to do in the sense that it gives creators a greater range of people to write and people who have been underserved by mainstream movies new characters to look up to and identify with. It not only makes good artistic sense but also financial one too, it's win win for me. The type of people who are angered (not saying you are btw) by this stuff can just get under the covers and sob tbh. They need to grow up and get out more.

It is but if it kept going down that route for the sake of it it would smell too much of the great pc diversity drive. Women are typically not the target audience for sci-fi and action either so I'm not sure about the commercial sense.

Look I find it actually a bit of fresh air so far. But if every single new Star Wars movie churned out a new lead action heroine eventually I would find it a little irritating. Thats all I'm saying.

FunLover18

Boskowski wrote:

It is but if it kept going down that route for the sake of it it would smell too much of the great pc diversity drive. Women are typically not the target audience for sci-fi and action either so I'm not sure about the commercial sense.

Look I find it actually a bit of fresh air so far. But if every single new Star Wars movie churned out a new lead action heroine eventually I would find it a little irritating. Thats all I'm saying.

Just because they're not typically the target audience doesn't mean they're not interested in sci-fi and action. And I think women are more than a little irritated at having to put up with Hollywood churning out male heroes all the time.

e_e

Boskowski wrote: »

it would smell too much of the great pc diversity drive.

I can't help but just shrug at this tbh. I've yet to see a movie or book or game be negatively affected by a diverse cast. For all this talk of PC pandering (especially among a certain cadre of people on YouTube) I find the opposite is moreso tedious if anything. People bemoan the lack of originality in movies but complain when directors go out of their way to shake things up a bit. It's ironic too because this diversity is actually what got me back into comics lately where it's not just guys in capes brooding over dead girlfriends anymore.

Boskowski wrote: »

Women are typically not the target audience for sci-fi and action either so I'm not sure about the commercial sense.

I think that's more for the fact that they've been more inherently macho genres on film in the past. If you look at the IMDB rating breakdowns The Force Awakens is actually higher rated among women. You can't deny the success of The Hunger Games series too. Was in a packed screening of the Mockingjay Part 2 and I'd say women outnumbered men at least 70 to 30 there. I think studios are rightfully starting to realize that science fiction can tell any kind of story and are not just exclusively guy things anymore.

Boskowski wrote: »

Look I find it actually a bit of fresh air so far. But if every single new Star Wars movie churned out a new lead action heroine eventually I would find it a little irritating. Thats all I'm saying.

That's fair enough. I think it's very early days yet though and even looking at Force Awakens the cast is very balanced, hell Finn and Poe are the first characters to get significant screen time as far as I recall.

Rob2D

FunLover18 wrote: »

Can someone explain the tactical advantages of the AT-ATs?

As far as I Can tell, they're slow, lumbering, not very manouverable with limited shooting range and every time I see them I wonder why anyone would design a military vehicle that can be tripped up. Is it just that they look cool?

bilston

I don't know. A lot of people here seem to have some sort of magical power where they can conclude how good an actress will be or how big a role an actor will have based on little over a minute of footage. That's a pretty neat trick!

puckmymuskie

bilston wrote: »

I don't know. A lot of people here seem to have some sort of magical power where they can conclude how good an actress will be or how big a role an actor will have based on little over a minute of footage. That's a pretty neat trick!

fanboys spouting conjecture ruin everything

Links234

david75 wrote: »

This actress and character is forever going to be compared to rey and daisey ridley and she's going to come out the loser every time..

Why, are women just interchangable to you?



I know when I watched the original trilogy, I couldn't keep track of it, Han Skywalker or whoever the heck it was, I've trouble telling them apart, just a bunch of token guys. Then watching the prequels it was all like, ok we get it, you've got men in your movie, can we stop with the agenda pushing, box ticking already? The Force Awakens finally has a relatable lead, and everyone just can enjoy the movie without getting the whole PC 'men can be leads too' agenda being pushed down their throats. And I've got nothing against males, I just don't think we should be making a habit of having them in movies, and if this sounds silly well then that's exactly how silly everyone who's giving out about women in Star Wars sound!

I suppose you might have a point, it's not like we've ever had women in leading roles in Science Fiction before... Oh hang on a mo, think I know of some obscure franchise with a character called Ellen Ripley!



Although, that does make me wonder if there was an analogue to this back in the day, guys angry over Sigourney Weaver, a feeeeeemale no less, getting a lead role, furiously writing letters to the editor or mailing their plans to boycott the movie to the studio execs.

Was there an equivalent to the Mad Max boycott back then?

PTH2009

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

loved the trailer really looking foward to this only negative is its not out till December!

Is this the big Xmas movie of 2016 or doas the assasians creed movie have that honor ??

david75

Links234 wrote: »

Why, are women just interchangable to you?



I know when I watched the original trilogy, I couldn't keep track of it, Han Skywalker or whoever the heck it was, I've trouble telling them apart, just a bunch of token guys. Then watching the prequels it was all like, ok we get it, you've got men in your movie, can we stop with the agenda pushing, box ticking already? The Force Awakens finally has a relatable lead, and everyone just can enjoy the movie without getting the whole PC 'men can be leads too' agenda being pushed down their throats. And I've got nothing against males, I just don't think we should be making a habit of having them in movies, and if this sounds silly well then that's exactly how silly everyone who's giving out about women in Star Wars sound!

I suppose you might have a point, it's not like we've ever had women in leading roles in Science Fiction before... Oh hang on a mo, think I know of some obscure franchise with a character called Ellen Ripley!



Although, that does make me wonder if there was an analogue to this back in the day, guys angry over Sigourney Weaver, a feeeeeemale no less, getting a lead role, furiously writing letters to the editor or mailing their plans to boycott the movie to the studio execs.

Was there an equivalent to the Mad Max boycott back then?

Links1234 im just wanting to say Rey is the newest and best female lead the world of sci fi cinema has seen since(dotdotdot possibly Ripley) but also the most relateable and as an actress on her first ever film, what a massive and brilliant performance she gives. She doesnt miss a step at any point. Trained actors would be falling over themselves and failing. she nailed it and im a fan.I wasnt being anything but a fan of her, thats all.

bradolf pittler

Gonna go out on a limb here and say that Ben Mendlesohn will be fantastic as the films baddie.

Boskowski

e_e wrote: »

I can't help but just shrug at this tbh. I've yet to see a movie or book or game be negatively affected by a diverse cast. For all this talk of PC pandering (especially among a certain cadre of people on YouTube) I find the opposite is moreso tedious if anything. People bemoan the lack of originality in movies but complain when directors go out of their way to shake things up a bit. It's ironic too because this diversity is actually what got me back into comics lately where it's not just guys in capes brooding over dead girlfriends anymore.


I think that's more for the fact that they've been more inherently macho genres on film in the past. If you look at the IMDB rating breakdowns The Force Awakens is actually higher rated among women. You can't deny the success of The Hunger Games series too. Was in a packed screening of the Mockingjay Part 2 and I'd say women outnumbered men at least 70 to 30 there. I think studios are rightfully starting to realize that science fiction can tell any kind of story and are not just exclusively guy things anymore.


That's fair enough. I think it's very early days yet though and even looking at Force Awakens the cast is very balanced, hell Finn and Poe are the first characters to get significant screen time as far as I recall.

Actually, all that is fair enough, too. Especially with the Hunger Games you're making very valid points, and if anything I'd welcome the arrival of women in those genres myself. In fact I didn't realise that women may be a bit peeved about the lack of heroines in such movies and would potentially like a more balanced approach. I simply assumed women just wouldn't be into that as much.

Anyway, balanced would be totally cool with me, all I was saying is I wouldn't like to see the heroines taking over completely.

I'm a little behind on this - where exactly does this fit within the Star Wars cannon? Especially with regards to the Force Awakens and those movies. Same universe, but different stories?

Mickeroo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm a little behind on this - where exactly does this fit within the Star Wars cannon? Especially with regards to the Force Awakens and those movies. Same universe, but different stories?

It's set in the lead up to the original film, so like 40 years before Force Awakens I guess.

Oh.. now that's interesting and adds a whole new level to the trailer! I didn't realize that, but now what I was seeing makes sense.

Lovely Bloke

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm a little behind on this - where exactly does this fit within the Star Wars cannon? Especially with regards to the Force Awakens and those movies. Same universe, but different stories?

in between the jar jar binks trilogy and the original trilogy.

this film tells the story of how the rebels got the plans for the Death Start, allowing Luke to destroy it.

faceman

Trailer was great and I'm usually super cynical.

But that poxy nostalgic slow played piano of theme tunes has to stop. It's irritating and cheap.

Other than that great trailer.

Gareth Edwards has seen an astronomical rise in fame - starting off with the low budget Monsters, the mega budget Godzilla, and now taking the helm for a movie in (arguably) one of the largest franchises in cinema history.

CatInABox

Deleted User wrote: »

Gareth Edwards has seen an astronomical rise in fame - starting off with the low budget Monsters, the mega budget Godzilla, and now taking the helm for a movie in (arguably) one of the largest franchises in cinema history.

Really loved Monsters, and loved the sense of scale that he managed to get in Godzilla, even if the rest of the film was average. From the trailer, he's definitely bringing that eye for scale to this as well, the way he managed to make the Star Destroyer look both huge and then tiny and insignificant in one shot was great.