Star Wars: Rogue One *spoilers from post 1195*

pauldla

For what it's worth, I watched it in a packed cinema on opening night on Friday (and was the only foreigner). Everyone seemed to enjoy it (a few cheers when Jiang Wen came on; he got a better reception than Donnie Yen, I thought).

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/

PhiloCypher

China is meant to be suffering with pretty serious smog atm , maybe that's what's responsible for the poor opening weekend .

Not Propaganda

david75 wrote: »

So Star Wars is dying. Yay.

Was that your point?

If Rogue One makes a billion that would be pretty impressive tbh

conorhal

PhiloCypher wrote: »

China is meant to be suffering with pretty serious smog atm , maybe that's what's responsible for the poor opening weekend .

Not really. TFA underperformed also. The reality is that Rogue One is a prequel to a series that didn't get released in China on it's initial run, so it's not like there's a generation nostalgic about the series there. With both TFA and rogue one trading rather heavilly on nostalgia for both their plot and emotional resonance, there simply isn't the interest in the series in China as there is in the west. Lets be honest, if you'd never heard of Star Wars then either film might not have much to offer other then confusion.

conorhal

Not Propaganda wrote: »

If Rogue One makes a billion that would be pretty impressive tbh

It depends on what impresses you. Making Transformers level of money isn't really a measure of quality though, it's a measure of marketing skill.

constitutionus

went to see it again today, this time in 2d.

gotta say it holds up well to a second viewing IMO though the "shock" value of the vader scene at the end has faded.

what really stood out to me was how much better CGI actors looked in this version.

i thought they looked bloody AWFUL in the 3D version. i just couldnt accept them as real at all , whereas in the 2D it was alot more convincing. mainly limiting my suspension of belief at the eyes (which still looked dead and vacant ) and a bit of rubberieness on the skin.

its just a cracking little star wars film and i agree with those that put it up there with the best of them. nice to see a move like this pay off and hopefully it bodes well for the other spin offs to come.

faceman

Watched this again on IMAX in California on one of the largest screens in the world. It was 2D

Unfortunately my feelings about it didn't change. In fact it only further heightened them.

It definitely solidified that this was a standalone a film. A pointless one too.

aaronjumper

Saw this over the weekend.

Overall I enjoyed it, it was more original than the Force Awakens which was nice.
I did think Forest Whitaker was going to have a bigger role in it than he ended up having.
Seemed like a bit of a waste.

Again I enjoyed it though, looking forward to adding it to the collection and then watching the series in the order it is supposed to be watched in.

eviltimeban

Not Propaganda wrote: »

If Rogue One makes a billion that would be pretty impressive tbh

It just did: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=starwars2016.htm

Domestic total - $512m.
Foreign total - $499m.

There's a billion right there.

david75

Yeah it's over the billion now. Great news.

Tony EH

I think it is.

It will show Disney that an adult Star Wars is a real seller and that it doesn't have to be dumbed down to do well.

It'll also shows that stand alone films - but within a recognisable tangent to the original series - that have nothing to do with Skywalkers, Solos or Fetts can make money. To me, this is a good thing, as Star Wars in general needs to move away from the extremely narrow limits that's been imposed upon it.

It also shows that people are interested in the Rebellion's war against the Empire and I'd personally would like to see more of that line.

There's three years of war between 'Star Wars' and 'The Empire Strikes Back' and numerous years of war after 'Return of the Jedi'.

Lots of stories to be told right there.

david75

Tony EH wrote: »

I think it is.

It will show Disney that an adult Star Wars is a real seller and that it doesn't have to be dumbed down to do well.

It'll also shows that stand alone films - but within a recognisable tangent to the original series - that have nothing to do with Skywalkers, Solos or Fetts can make money. To me, this is a good thing, as Star Wars in general needs to move away from the extremely narrow limits that's been imposed upon it.

It also shows that people are interested in the Rebellion's war against the Empire and I'd personally would like to see more of that line.

There's three years of war between 'Star Wars' and 'The Empire Strikes Back' and numerous years of war after 'Return of the Jedi'.

Lots of stories to be told right there.

In fairness they won't go back to pre a new hope / rebellion against the empire.
They're already doing it in the Rebels series. *might* get a live action film of that crew but it's highly highly doubtful.

eviltimeban

david75 wrote: »

In fairness they won't go back to pre a new hope / rebellion against the empire.
They're already doing it in the Rebels series. *might* get a live action film of that crew but it's highly highly doubtful.

At the moment they are using characters that everyone knows; be it Vader or Han Solo. I'd say they are a bit off creating a SW movie that doesn't involve a previously known character at all.

I wonder what some kind of "birth of the Jedi" movie would be like. Who was the first Jedi to "use the force"? When did they start using light sabers? Was there a time where that technology wasn't available? Just how long ago did this galaxy have space ships, light speed, etc?

david75

eviltimeban wrote: »

At the moment they are using characters that everyone knows; be it Vader or Han Solo. I'd say they are a bit off creating a SW movie that doesn't involve a previously known character at all.

I wonder what some kind of "birth of the Jedi" movie would be like. Who was the first Jedi to "use the force"? When did they start using light sabers? Was there a time where that technology wasn't available? Just how long ago did this galaxy have space ships, light speed, etc?

Well they already sorta have two versions of the birth of the force and Jedi/Sith . One in clone wars one in the comics but which is rumoured to be having an appearance in 8. Though I doubt it personally.

But cool use about the first Jedi. That be deadly.

salmocab

Ive said before around here that in a universe that size they can go anywhere story wise, indeed given the way the movies have been released they can jump around timelines too nothing has to be in order. All that really has to be in is either jedi's, an incarnation of the republic or the rebellion. The episodes have effectively become about the Skywalker family so any stand alone should really avoid them.

AMKC

Went and seen this for a 2nd time myself on Wednesday last. Have to say I enjoyed it more the second time the sound in the first cinema I went to was not as good as the second cinema even do it was a smaller screen. I think smaller screens have better surround sound sysetems or maybe its just me lol.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

In fairness they won't go back to pre a new hope / rebellion against the empire.
They're already doing it in the Rebels series. *might* get a live action film of that crew but it's highly highly doubtful.

An adult oriented "Rebels" could work, with a lot of tweaks. But a straight live action adaptation is a no no for me. 'The Clone Wars' and 'Rebels' are just too juvinile to translate into good films for me. We'd be right back to 'Phantom menace' level muck.

I don't see why Disney can't skip through any of the timelines they wish though, provided there's a story to be told.

A film detailing what Darth Vader did during the twenty years before teh original 'Star Wars' would sell easily. Just look at all the jizz about Vader's 30 second crack down in 'Rogue One'! He finally has his balls back.

People would love that and believe me, I'd say Disney have taken note of how that Vader scene went down. In addition, the last part of 'Rogue One' has seen almost universial praise, even if the first half was too much build up for some people. So, there's clearly a market for the "war" type Star Wars film.

david75

Clone wars might be animated but it's not juvenile. It's totally complex politically and some dark dark stuff in there, witches of dathomir etc

The three standalones will be set before a new hope. Then once they're done they'll leave that period and move on I reckon.

Frank Bullitt

Saw this last night...that Vader scene with his lightsaber, oh yes indeed.

Really liked this approach to a Star Wars film as well. Fantastic stuff.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

Clone wars might be animated but it's not juvenile. It's totally complex politically and some dark dark stuff in there, witches of dathomir etc

The three standalones will be set before a new hope. Then once they're done they'll leave that period and move on I reckon.

To me, the cartoons are for kids. Maybe I'm just too old now, but I don't enjoy them. That being said, there's plenty in there that can be adapted for an adult film, in the right hands of course.

What's the third standalone? Kenobi? Not sure if that's a real goer yet.

TBH, Disney could try an adapt anything from Star Wars and there would be some sort of audience for it. They could do a film about Jimmy the power droid and there would be plenty of folk saying "best Ster Wers evar!"



Jimmy The Power Droid - A Star Wars story

david75

Have you learned nothing about Star Wars fans from this thread?

There's nobody harder on Star Wars than Star Wars fans. A funny it might be but no way at all would Star Wars fans go see anything they put out. Plus it'll never come to a moment where they'll put out crap just to make money. They're taking so much care with all of this franchise. And doing a great job on all its platforms.
Disney made $3billion last year alone. First studio to ever do that.
It'll be hardcore quality control for a long long Time.

eviltimeban

I had a weird thought - a Clone Wars movie but starring Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christensen. I'm not fan of HC by far but I wonder what he'd like as Anakin if he had some decent dialogue and direction to work with. Can't see that happening though.

david75

There's a lot of people me included want him (Hayden)brought back as a force ghost to talk to Luke or Kylo in 8 or 9. It almost makes no sense for it not to happen.
Why would Yoda be appearing to Luke and not his father?
He's a very capable actor in the right hands. I'd love to see it. It's a real shame it wasn't him in the bacta tank in Rogue One.

Bacchus

eviltimeban wrote: »

I had a weird thought - a Clone Wars movie but starring Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christensen. I'm not fan of HC by far but I wonder what he'd like as Anakin if he had some decent dialogue and direction to work with. Can't see that happening though.

Cool idea but yeah, they'd be too old now to tie in with Episodes II and III. Ewan could work, hiding behind that beard but Hayden was 21 when they made Episode II. He'd be in his late 30s by the time such a project got to filming.

Ignoring those two, a series of Clone War movies following new characters would be awesome... all out war between two powerhouses and the Jedi/Sith at their peak. You'd probably still have to recast a couple of major human characters such as Windu and the Emperor but for the most part it should be easy to weave in new stories.

Bacchus

david75 wrote: »

Why would Yoda be appearing to Luke and not his father?

Well it was Yoda that appeared to him in V so it's not out of place. Yoda is Luke's master in training to be a Jedi. Anakin would work too obviously but I can see why Yoda is there.

Tony EH

Luke's father means nothing to him. He never knew him.

He knew the muppet though, if relatively briefly. So, it makes more sense if his old Jedi master was to return to have a yap. Also, it would just be stupid looking having a young Hayden Christiansen advising an OAP Mark Hammil. That won't sit right at all.

TBH, I'd rather they limit force ghosts and all that shite. It was only made up in the OT so they could retcon the whole Vader daddy angle anyway and it's a ridiculously twee idea.

Lastly, I never want to see Christiansen is another Star Wars film...ever. I think Disney are doing a good job of distancing themselves from the prequels train wreck. They should continue that course.

TerrorFirmer

I think a return of sorts of Christiansen doesn't in theory have to be a terrible thing. Yes, he stunk up the prequels, but to be fair so did the entire ensemble of award winning actors - he's quite a good actor usually. Some sort of appearance in Ep 8 could have worked well with Kylo Ren, given Anakin was a similar age when he underwent the transformation to Darth Vader. Snoke could even possibly manipulate a vision of Anakin to spur Kylo Ren further down the path to the dark side, rather than the happy family force ghost stuff (and I agree with you on that point, I never liked it and it should be limited or avoided in general).

The prequels were poorly done, but I think we shouldn't strive to have everything in them excised, ignored or forgotten. Continuity is important in Star Wars and ultimately, Christiansen is Anakin and I feel he deserves a chance and could offer a lot to Ep8 or 9.

He gets a disporportionate amount of the hate for EpII and III, but it really wasn't his fault how poorly they were written and directed. Portman and Jackson are two major names that also gave dismal, b-movie quality performances but people forgave them readily enough. The funny thing is that the acting and direction in EpI is actually of a much higher standard (poor, over complicated story and Jar Jar aside), it's like Lucas stopped caring as much with the rest of the sequels.

Zubeneschamali

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The prequels were poorly done, but I think we shouldn't strive to have everything in them excised, ignored or forgotten.

I would be quite happy to see Disney make a few standalones, complete 7-9, and then loop back and remake the prequels, trashing Lucas's prequels completely, from top to bottom. Have the new prequels match IV-VI as well as Rogue One does, and have actual scripts with plots, characters and dialogue as well as action and SFX.

Drumpot

Bit of a wildcard here but I would love to see an emperor palpatine backstory... I think he was a great villain. They could do what rogue one did and possibly clean up some ambiguity regarding Annakins conception (was palps involved or not?!).

Suppose my worry would be who they could get to play the role because I thought Ian mcdiarmuid was superb. Particularly in ROTS.

Asides from that, I read some of the comics based on the universe long long before Ep1 and there is some savage stuff...

tigger123

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I think a return of sorts of Christiansen doesn't in theory have to be a terrible thing. Yes, he stunk up the prequels, but to be fair so did the entire ensemble of award winning actors - he's quite a good actor usually. Some sort of appearance in Ep 8 could have worked well with Kylo Ren, given Anakin was a similar age when he underwent the transformation to Darth Vader. Snoke could even possibly manipulate a vision of Anakin to spur Kylo Ren further down the path to the dark side, rather than the happy family force ghost stuff (and I agree with you on that point, I never liked it and it should be limited or avoided in general).

The prequels were poorly done, but I think we shouldn't strive to have everything in them excised, ignored or forgotten. Continuity is important in Star Wars and ultimately, Christiansen is Anakin and I feel he deserves a chance and could offer a lot to Ep8 or 9.

He gets a disporportionate amount of the hate for EpII and III, but it really wasn't his fault how poorly they were written and directed. Portman and Jackson are two major names that also gave dismal, b-movie quality performances but people forgave them readily enough. The funny thing is that the acting and direction in EpI is actually of a much higher standard (poor, over complicated story and Jar Jar aside), it's like Lucas stopped caring as much with the rest of the sequels.

I'd be inclined to agree: A) They're not as bad as a lot of people make out, and It's down to Lucas, his awful script, terrible direction, and horrific editing.