Star Wars: Rogue One *spoilers from post 1195*

david75

See below

david75

Trouble is if it is or isn't doesn't matter. Cos bein right on the internet is more important.


Complain that dead actor gets inserted into the film. Outrage!!


Complain that unused footage isn't in the film. Outrage!


Boring at this point.

Wedwood

Michael Giacchino has long been viewed as the modern composer most similar in style to John Williams, so I was delighted to see how he would score a Star Wars movie. In fairness, it's a decent enough score and he clearly used a similar technique and style to his scoring of Jurassic World, where he echoes Williams' themes but also puts his own style throughout.

Of the current modern composers, I think he's the one most suited to entrust the Star Wars movies to when John Williams decides to hand the baton on.

We've perhaps lived through the golden age of movie score music from John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, John Barry, James Horner, with honourable mentions to Maurice Jarre. There's been great composers before and since, but those 5 are the best there's ever been.

That's a hard act for anyone to follow, we should be thankful we didn't get another one of Hans Zimmer's dialled in scores.

Slydice

david75 wrote: »

Trouble is if it is or isn't doesn't matter. Cos bein right on the internet is more important.


Complain that dead actor gets inserted into the film. Outrage!!


Complain that unused footage isn't in the film. Outrage!


Boring at this point.

I think you might need to look at my posts again. There's no complaint.

judeboy101

Wedwood wrote: »

Michael Giacchino has long been viewed as the modern composer most similar in style to John Williams, so I was delighted to see how he would score a Star Wars movie. In fairness, it's a decent enough score and he clearly used a similar technique and style to his scoring of Jurassic World, where he echoes Williams' themes but also puts his own style throughout.

Of the current modern composers, I think he's the one most suited to entrust the Star Wars movies to when John Williams decides to hand the baton on.

We've perhaps lived through the golden age of movie score music from John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, John Barry, James Horner, with honourable mentions to Maurice Jarre. There's been great composers before and since, but those 5 are the best there's ever been.

That's a hard act for anyone to follow, we should be thankful we didn't get another one of Hans Zimmer's dialled in scores.

I think ennio morricone might like to have words with you

Wedwood

judeboy101 wrote: »

I think ennio morricone might like to have words with you

Its hard to believe he only won his first Oscar last year for his score for The Hateful Eight (ahead of John Williams for Force Awakens). You could add in more greats like Elmer Bernstein, Bernard Herrman and Miklos Roza.

Of the current composers, only Giacchino comes anywhere close to those guys.

david75

Wedwood wrote: »

Michael Giacchino has long been viewed as the modern composer most similar in style to John Williams, so I was delighted to see how he would score a Star Wars movie. In fairness, it's a decent enough score and he clearly used a similar technique and style to his scoring of Jurassic World, where he echoes Williams' themes but also puts his own style throughout.

Of the current modern composers, I think he's the one most suited to entrust the Star Wars movies to when John Williams decides to hand the baton on.

We've perhaps lived through the golden age of movie score music from John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, John Barry, James Horner, with honourable mentions to Maurice Jarre. There's been great composers before and since, but those 5 are the best there's ever been.

That's a hard act for anyone to follow, we should be thankful we didn't get another one of Hans Zimmer's dialled in scores.

The music was my biggest problem I think.

Giacchino will do more Star Wars and he given more time. I'm up for letting him go again.

Osmosis Jones

I kind of really hate how much people (not necessarily in this thread) have complained about some of the trailer footage not being used considering they're a lot of the same people who say modern movie trailers spoil too much of the movie. I thought the trailer did a great job of capturing the tone of the movie without giving anything away.

pixelburp

david75 wrote: »

Trouble is if it is or isn't doesn't matter. Cos bein right on the internet is more important.

Complain that dead actor gets inserted into the film. Outrage!!

Complain that unused footage isn't in the film. Outrage!

Boring at this point.

Lordy, relax david75. Only person getting steamed here is you . There's similar shots in the Archive, but that specific one didn't make the final cut - it wasn't meant to:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-the-rogue-one-trailers-most-iconic-shot-never-appea-1790910745

TLDR? That 'lookback' moment was improvised during some off the cuff shooting Garth Edwards arranged for the crew. It was promptly forgotten. Marketing saw it in the dailies, loved it, used it in the trailers.

There was other material very definitely reshot from the original narrative, but that specific moment was just a bit of messing around after filming was done.

Turtyturd

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

I thought the trailer did a great job of capturing the tone of the movie without giving anything away.

I haven't seen the trailer in a while but while it did a good job capturing the tone it was very misleading about Jin's allegiances from what I remember.

david75

pixelburp wrote: »

Lordy, relax david75. Only person getting steamed here is you . There's similar shots in the Archive, but that specific one didn't make the final cut - it wasn't meant to:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-the-rogue-one-trailers-most-iconic-shot-never-appea-1790910745

TLDR? That 'lookback' moment was improvised during some off the cuff shooting Garth Edwards arranged for the crew. It was promptly forgotten. Marketing saw it in the dailies, loved it, used it in the trailers.

There was other material very definitely reshot from the original narrative, but that specific moment was just a bit of messing around after filming was done.

I was sorta speaking more to the general reaction overall among fandom. It's quite literally a lose lose situation for LF. Damned either way. It'll come round again no matter what they decide to do about Leia. As to the trailers being different footage than the films and people complaining about it, I don't get that at all. There was footage in force awakens trailers that wasn't in the film. Luke even spoke in the trailers. Yet no complaints anything like the level this got.
That goon on collider even going as far as saying it was false advertising.
Give us a break like.

pixelburp

david75 wrote: »

I was sorta speaking more to the general reaction overall among fandom. It's quite literally a lose lose situation for LF. Damned either way. It'll come round again no matter what they decide to do about Leia. As to the trailers being different footage than the films and people complaining about it, I don't get that at all. There was footage in force awakens trailers that wasn't in the film. Luke even spoke in the trailers. Yet no complaints anything like the level this got.
That goon on collider even going as far as saying it was false advertising.
Give us a break like.

Well we swim in different oceans, because the 'general' reaction I've read about the trailers has been one of pure curiosity and intrigue: and why wouldn't there be? Based on the footage & interviews with the crew, there's literally another version of Rogue One out there - one that'll probably never see the light of day.

You don't have to be some 'outrage' fuelled Star Wars fanboy to appreciate the appeal of that: even a passing interest in film should peak anyone's interest. The 'alternate version' is a ongoing legend within Hollywood, from Blade Runner to Brazil to Alien 3, even last year with Batman v. Superman. People love a good mystery, and in film a missing/unearthed/alternative version of a movie is a fascinating one.

Nor is there anything new about moments from trailers not making it to the final cut, but when it turns out that the trailer represents scenes and flashes of a different narrative entirely, of course that's going to create more discussion / enthusiasm / 'outrage'. And it opens up entirely new thoughts about the film: what was the plot, were characters better or differently drawn out etc. etc.

But if people on Collider are annoying you, take your frustration out on Collider, not here. We can only discuss the things brought up here, not elsewhere

david75

pixelburp wrote: »

Well we swim in different oceans, because the 'general' reaction I've read about the trailers has been one of pure curiosity and intrigue: and why wouldn't there be? Based on the footage & interviews with the crew, there's literally another version of Rogue One out there - one that'll probably never see the light of day.

You don't have to be some 'outrage' fuelled Star Wars fanboy to appreciate the appeal of that: even a passing interest in film should peak anyone's interest. The 'alternate version' is a ongoing legend within Hollywood, from Blade Runner to Brazil to Alien 3, even last year with Batman v. Superman. People love a good mystery, and in film a missing/unearthed/alternative version of a movie is a fascinating one.

Nor is there anything new about moments from trailers not making it to the final cut, but when it turns out that the trailer represents scenes and flashes of a different narrative entirely, of course that's going to create more discussion / enthusiasm / 'outrage'. And it opens up entirely new thoughts about the film: what was the plot, were characters better or differently drawn out etc. etc.

But if people on Collider are annoying you, take your frustration out on Collider, not here. We can only discuss the things brought up here, not elsewhere

Wish you'd been here a few pages back.

Sad Professor

As a director Edwards seems to be a Malick or Wong Kar Wai-type, i.e. a sloppy shooter who makes his films in the editing room. The reshoots make a lot more sense in this context – he was probably missing shots and entire scenes and needed pick-ups just to finish the movie. As does the involvement of Tony Gilroy – it wasn’t studio interference, just Edwards needing help to finish editing the film in months rather than years.

I don’t believe there’s an alternate version of the film sitting out there. More like enough footage to make 20 different versions of the same film, though none of them very good. The released version is probably the only one they were able to make work in the time they had.

david75

Sad Professor wrote: »

As a director Edwards seems to be a Malick or Wong Kar Wai-type, i.e. a sloppy shooter who makes his films in the editing room. The reshoots make a lot more sense in this context – he was probably missing shots and entire scenes and needed pick-ups just to finish the movie. As does the involvement of Tony Gilroy – it wasn’t studio interference, just Edwards needing help to finish editing the film in months rather than years.

I don’t believe there’s an alternate version of the film sitting out there. More like enough footage to make 20 different versions of the same film, though none of them very good. The released version is probably the only one they were able to make work in the time they had.

Well Edwards literally shoots it himself with the camera in his shoulder. And that first person perspective really worked throughout the film. On the ground looking up at at-ats etc. And they shot something like 50 hours of footage apparently. Number might be wrong but it was up there and a crazy amount of footage. So that can lead to it being unfocused and having too much in the editing room.

Stark contrast to Lucas making the original and who knew exactly what shots he wanted and stuck rigidly to that list and wouldn't budge. Yet Lucas did complain Star Wars was only about 30% of his original vision.

Gotta appreciate the pressure they're under in the shooting process and then in the editing.

uck51js9zml2yt

Went to see it this evening. Enjoyed it and liked the humour. Pity to see the hero's die in the end. Nice link to the future with the princess.

Grandeeod

Sad Professor wrote: »

As a director Edwards seems to be a Malick or Wong Kar Wai-type, i.e. a sloppy shooter who makes his films in the editing room. The reshoots make a lot more sense in this context – he was probably missing shots and entire scenes and needed pick-ups just to finish the movie. As does the involvement of Tony Gilroy – it wasn’t studio interference, just Edwards needing help to finish editing the film in months rather than years.

I don’t believe there’s an alternate version of the film sitting out there. More like enough footage to make 20 different versions of the same film, though none of them very good. The released version is probably the only one they were able to make work in the time they had.

Are you a filmmaker? Seriously? Have you ever tried filmmaking?

Sad Professor

Grandeeod wrote: »

Are you a filmmaker? Seriously? Have you ever tried filmmaking?

Yes, I have worked on short films, so I know how hard it is and you don’t always get everything you need, nor do you have a perfect “vision” in your head of what you want. Sometimes you stumble around a bit before you find it. It’s a process and frequently a messy one. Plans only go so far.

Edwards appears to mostly make his films in the editing room. Some directors (like Abrams) make them on set. Others make them in pre-production (Hitchcock). There’s no right approach, but over-shooting and doing several versions of scenes in order to discover the film in post-production is time-consuming. Malick shoots so much footage he spends on average 2 years in editing. Edwards didn’t have that kind of time and he was making a commercial film, so the reshoots and help in post-production were necessary to finish the film on time and not necessarily a sign of course correction, which is what the reshoots have caused many to assume.

But maybe I’m wrong. I’m basing this on the actors and editors saying Edwards was shooting different versions of things and there was tons of footage to wade through. But we also have Edwards saying he was goofing around half the time and didn’t plan to use a lot of this stuff.

david75

The saying goes a film gets made three times
In the writing
In the shooting
In the editing

Dempsey

Saw the film this evening and I thought it was one of the better if not the best Star Wars film simply because the stormtroopers could shoot properly!

david75

Dempsey wrote: »

Saw the film this evening and I thought it was one of the better if not the best Star Wars film simply because the stormtroopers could shoot properly!

That's the highest praise possible.

(So why can't they ahoot straight ten minutes later in Star Wars?) hehe

py2006

Pleasantly surprised by this movie.

I wasn't really excited about it in the build up for some reason. The humour was good, it looked good and it was Star Warsy! The set designs and set pieces actually put the Force Awakens to shame. I actually think it puts more pressure on VIII in December.

The Directors cut would be an interesting watch.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

That's the highest praise possible.

(So why can't they ahoot straight ten minutes later in Star Wars?) hehe

Vader wants Luke an co to escape and lead the Death Star to the rebel base.

They're dedicated, those troopers + TIE pilots. I'll give them that. :pac:

david75

Tony EH wrote: »

Vader wants Luke an co to escape and lead the Death Star to the rebel base.

They're dedicated, those troopers + TIE pilots. I'll give them that. :pac:

Someone did make the point. All the rogue one crew died to steal those plans.
Leia hides the plans in R2.

And Luke and his merry band take the Death Star plans DIRECTLY BACK TO THE DEATH STAR and nearly get caught there!! haha!!

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

Someone did make the point. All the rogue one crew died to steal those plans.
Leia hides the plans in R2.

And Luke and his merry band take the Death Star plans DIRECTLY BACK TO THE DEATH STAR and nearly get caught there!! haha!!

:pac:

Feckin ejits.

david75

Well that's just weird. So rogue one has so far bombed in China.

Only $31 million opening weekend. Doubt lucasfilm will bother promoting it there in future.
http://deadline.com/2017/01/rogue-one-crosses-900-million-china-sing-passengers-dangal-international-box-office-weekend-1201880724/

david75

Star Wars on the Muppet show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JXZwOfBsyM

Slydice

david75 wrote: »

Well that's just weird. So rogue one has so far bombed in China.

Only $31 million opening weekend. Doubt lucasfilm will bother promoting it there in future.
http://deadline.com/2017/01/rogue-one-crosses-900-million-china-sing-passengers-dangal-international-box-office-weekend-1201880724/

Force Awakens made $52 million in it's opening weekend there:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=starwars7.htm

With $31 million in it's opening weekend, Rogue One looks to be well on track of what I was thinking earlier:

Slydice wrote: »

So maybe Rogue One in China will scale down similarly (around half) so about 50-70 million.

Looks to me like it's got a chance to top $900 but probably not gonna make the billion.

Though... it might make the billion now that it's $914 million already!

uck51js9zml2yt

My 2 standout characters were the reprogrammed robot and the blind guy.
I couldn't figure out why they did nothing about evacuating the ship until Vader is aboard. They had enough warning

david75

Slydice wrote: »

Force Awakens made $52 million in it's opening weekend there:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=starwars7.htm

With $31 million in it's opening weekend, Rogue One looks to be well on track of what I was thinking earlier:


Though... it might make the billion now that it's $914 million already!

So Star Wars is dying. Yay.

Was that your point?