Star Wars: Rogue One *spoilers from post 1195*

PhiloCypher

david75 wrote: »

Seanachai wrote: »

It's the fantasy element and a certain level of 'grunginess' that that I liked in the original films I suppose. I have a fair idea what's in store alright lol, they can open up the galaxy and be progressive while still keeping in line with the original vision. But as the business side of things is kind of overshadowing the creative aspect I can understand why the producers want to make them as appealing as possible to the widest possible audience. Not just pedantic, misty-eyed fans like me

It's funny cos an over familiar design language was one of people's big complaints about TFA. Same old desert planet. Same old broke down x wings same old OT looking rebel base.

So they're damned if they do that stuff and as above, damned if they don't.

I think it was the over familiar plot and not that there were 'shock horror' x-wings in a star wars movie .

budgemook

Driver delivered the best Star Wars villain ever IMO.

Krennic in Rogue One was great too. I watched it again recently and he really did a great job. He's really up against it, getting it from all sides but pushing on and on trying to get the recognition and promotion that he was never going to achieve. You'd almost feel sorry for him, almost.

Drumpot

budgemook wrote: »

Driver delivered the best Star Wars villain ever IMO.

Krennic in Rogue One was great too. I watched it again recently and he really did a great job. He's really up against it, getting it from all sides but pushing on and on trying to get the recognition and promotion that he was never going to achieve. You'd almost feel sorry for him, almost.

That's what makes krennic such a good villain. He is relatable and partially an empathetic character. Many people have been undermined in an office or had somebody else take credit for their work.




And then on the same level, hes smugly proud of his weapon when it destroys a city and kills thousands..

I have to say this movie gets better on repeat viewing . .

Tom.D.BJJ

budgemook wrote: »

Driver delivered the best Star Wars villain ever IMO.

Seanachai

budgemook wrote: »

Driver delivered the best Star Wars villain ever IMO.

Krennic in Rogue One was great too. I watched it again recently and he really did a great job. He's really up against it, getting it from all sides but pushing on and on trying to get the recognition and promotion that he was never going to achieve. You'd almost feel sorry for him, almost.

I have to disagree, he came across as a huffy teenager throwing a tantrum, the menace just wasn't there. It takes a certain kind of actor to portray darkness well like Mendelsohn and they are a rare breed.

david75

Tom.D.BJJ wrote: »

Haha. Well played

eviltimeban

Seanachai wrote: »

I have to disagree, he came across as a huffy teenager throwing a tantrum, the menace just wasn't there. It takes a certain kind of actor to portray darkness well like Mendelsohn and they are a rare breed.

That was the point, he WAS a huffy teenager (more or less) having a tantrum. That's why he wore a mask, as when he took it off it revealed he was nothing more than a frightened boy, trying to live up to the ideals he had set, controlled by Snoke, "rebelling" against his parents, beginning to be consumed by the dark side. You could really see it in his eyes, and Driver did an excellent job portraying that side of him.

The fact that he killed his own father meant that he had crossed that line into the darkness.

I don't think Krennic was a "dark" character at all - he was a career military man. For him, killing thousands was just part of what he was doing, it was a by product. He wanted to get ahead. Sure, he was vicious and ruthless but not necessarily with a darkness around him.

budgemook

Agree that Rogue One gets better with repeat viewing.

WRT Drive / Kilo Ren - there is something twitchy about him. A huffy teenager, sure, but also a demented psycho waiting to happen. I thought he pulled that off very well.

I don't know who that CGI character is.

EDIT - a quick investigation tells me it is someone from Star Wars rebels. I have never watched that.

Tony EH

eviltimeban wrote: »

That was the point, he WAS a huffy teenager (more or less) having a tantrum. That's why he wore a mask, as when he took it off it revealed he was nothing more than a frightened boy, trying to live up to the ideals he had set, controlled by Snoke, "rebelling" against his parents, beginning to be consumed by the dark side. You could really see it in his eyes, and Driver did an excellent job portraying that side of him.

The fact that he killed his own father meant that he had crossed that line into the darkness.

I don't think Krennic was a "dark" character at all - he was a career military man. For him, killing thousands was just part of what he was doing, it was a by product. He wanted to get ahead. Sure, he was vicious and ruthless but not necessarily with a darkness around him.

Which is exactly what makes him a better villain. Nobody is "evil" and nobody is "virtuous". Krennic is a career man and will do what it takes to get the ear of the top lad. If that means casually killing thousands on an order from above or walking over the next guy, then he'll do it without a blink of an eye. Those type of people exist. People like Hux, Renn, Palpatine and even Vader (although he's a classic tragic villain) don't - well, of course they don't, but you know what I mean.

It's what makes the Empire a great set of "baddies" and the Empire period the best in Star Wars. Most of the military are on the "wrong" side, but you still get a sense that they're joe bloggs doing a job and fighting a war against a foe they believe to be wrong. It's the opposite of the silliness of the Sith, or "Dark Side" :rolleyes: who are just bad to be bad.

The original film has plenty of small military parts played well. Other good examples were Veers and Jerjerrod from the sequels. Actually, the deleted scenes of Jerjerrod from 'Return of the Jedi' will always be a real misfortune. His standing up to Vader and his conflict over whether to carry out orders from the Emperor that would doom his men are great scenes and fully deserve to be in the final cut.

I've always felt it was better to have the Jedi pushed to the background. Relics from a mythical past, a joke in the corridors of power almost. The way Vader is treated in the original 'Star Wars' is perfect. He's a fascination, but none of the military officers are that impressed by him. He's a faintly ridiculous concoction of machine and man that can do some parlour tricks. Even though he's the Emperor's envoy, Tarkin is the real top dog in the immediate set up. Tarkin is also another great example of a villain done correctly. An absolute cnut, no doubt, but not a theatrical malevolent laugh to be heard.

david75

Rogue one into a new hope mashup is awesome
https://vimeo.com/209144283

Seanachai

Tony EH wrote: »

Which is exactly what makes him a better villain. Nobody is "evil" and nobody is "virtuous". Krennic is a career man and will do what it takes to get the ear of the top lad. If that means casually killing thousands on an order from above or walking over the next guy, then he'll do it without a blink of an eye. Those type of people exist. People like Hux, Renn, Palpatine and even Vader (although he's a classic tragic villain) don't - well, of course they don't, but you know what I mean.

It's what makes the Empire a great set of "baddies" and the Empire period the best in Star Wars. Most of the military are on the "wrong" side, but you still get a sense that they're joe bloggs doing a job and fighting a war against a foe they believe to be wrong. It's the opposite of the silliness of the Sith, or "Dark Side" :rolleyes: who are just bad to be bad.

The original film has plenty of small military parts played well. Other good examples were Veers and Jerjerrod from the sequels. Actually, the deleted scenes of Jerjerrod from 'Return of the Jedi' will always be a real misfortune. His standing up to Vader and his conflict over whether to carry out orders from the Emperor that would doom his men are great scenes and fully deserve to be in the final cut.

I've always felt it was better to have the Jedi pushed to the background. Relics from a mythical past, a joke in the corridors of power almost. The way Vader is treated in the original 'Star Wars' is perfect. He's a fascination, but none of the military officers are that impressed by him. He's a faintly ridiculous concoction of machine and man that can do some parlour tricks. Even though he's the Emperor's envoy, Tarkin is the real top dog in the immediate set up. Tarkin is also another great example of a villain done correctly. An absolute cnut, no doubt, but not a theatrical malevolent laugh to be heard.

Killing without passion is one of the definitions of psychopathy, Kylo Ren's behaviour seems to be born out of psychosis because of pain, they are two completely different things. Krennic killing thousands without so much as a whimper is a lot darker than Kylo Ren's transition, no matter how scary the mask. This is why people don't see psychopaths coming and they are much more insidious than characters that have just turned bad from inner turmoil and circumstances.

Tony EH

Seanachai wrote: »

Killing without passion is one of the definitions of psychopathy, Kylo Ren behaviour seems to be born out of psychosis because of pain, they are two completely different things. Krennic killing thousands without so much as a whimper is a lot darker than Kylo Ren's transition, no matter how scary the mask. This is why people don't see psychopaths coming and they are much more insidious than characters that have just turned bad from inner turmoil and circumstances.

To Krennic's mind he's doing a job. There's no psychopathy about it. He's merely pushing a button, akin to the dropping of hundreds of tons of bombs on women and children by pilots supposedly fighting for a "good" cause. These people aren't psychos. They're ordinary men who justify their actions in whatever way they can.

It maybe darker than a purely fantasy figure like Kylo Renn, but it's darker because that person is real.

Seanachai

Tony EH wrote: »

To Krennic's mind he's doing a job. There's no psychopathy about it. He's merely pushing a button, akin to the dropping of hundreds of tons of bombs on women and children by pilots supposedly fighting for a "good" cause. These people aren't psychos. They're ordinary men who justify their actions in whatever way they can.

It maybe darker than a purely fantasy figure like Kylo Renn, but it's darker because that person is real.

They generally are workmanlike in their carnage, no sweat, no emotion. You've just touched on something big there, it's a subject for a different forum but the people you're referring to just doing their job and not feeling/showing remorse are technically psychopaths. There are soldiers operating drones who will wipe out who they are told to and not have an afterthought about it and others who are having nervous breakdowns when what they are doing hits them.

Most psychos don't kill anybody but will impoverish a nation or cause homelessness etc without losing a wink of sleep. Maybe Krennic is privately tortured by his actions, but from my recollection of the film, he doesn't seem to show this. He's more concerned with his goal of creating order, at any cost. If they decided that he not show private torment, then it's an oversight because it's the difference between a character being human and not human. If it is the case that he doesn't feel remorse then he is a true monster, if he does then I accept your view on his character.

Tony EH

Seanachai wrote: »

They generally are workmanlike in their carnage, no sweat, no emotion. You've just touched on something big there, it's a subject for a different forum but the people you're referring to just doing their job and not feeling/showing remorse are technically psychopaths. There are soldiers operating drones who will wipe out who they are told to and not have an afterthought about it and others who are having nervous breakdowns when what they are doing hits them.

Most psychos don't kill anybody but will impoverish a nation or cause homelessness etc without losing a wink of sleep. Maybe Krennic is privately tortured by his actions, but from my recollection of the film, he doesn't seem to show this. He's more concerned with his goal of creating order, at any cost. If they decided that he not show private torment, then it's an oversight because it's the difference between a character being human and not human. If it is the case that he doesn't feel remorse then he is a true monster, if he does then I accept your view on his character.

Well. we are getting into a discussion that doesn't really belong on a thread about a silly star wars film.

But, I would fall short of calling people who drop bombs on what they consider an "enemy", psychopaths, in the traditional sense of the word anyway. People (everybody) have a very real capacity to justify their awful actions, especially during wartime, when they engage in activities they wouldn't dream of during peacetime. Plus the bestowing of "enemy status" upon a certain group(s) can and does give licence to people to carry out orders that they would otherwise naturally abhor. In other case, people simply lack the imagination to visualise the effects of the destruction and they never will until physically shown.

In addition, without the obvious horror associated with up close and personal killing, it's easier to put such thoughts to the back of ones mind. At a distance, it's merely a target - whether that target is a plane, ship or (IMO to a lesser extent) a city.

In any case, war is killing and is carried out by all sides in a conflict. Which 'Rogue One' actually touched upon in a real (and long overdue) way and I've always liked the Randall speech about innocents on the Death Star being "collateral damage" when the Rebels blew them up. When one stops to think about it, he's entirely correct.

Anyway, we should probably get back to talking Star Wars properly.

Seanachai

Tony EH wrote: »

Well. we are getting into a discussion that doesn't really belong on a thread about a silly star wars film.

But, I would fall short of calling people who drop bombs on what they consider an "enemy", psychopaths, in the traditional sense of the word anyway. People (everybody) have a very real capacity to justify their awful actions, especially during wartime, when they engage in activities they wouldn't dream of during peacetime. Plus the bestowing of "enemy status" upon a certain group(s) can and does give licence to people to carry out orders that they would otherwise naturally abhor. In other case, people simply lack the imagination to visualise the effects of the destruction and they never will until physically shown.

In addition, without the obvious horror associated with up close and personal killing, it's easier to put such thoughts to the back of ones mind. At a distance, it's merely a target - whether that target is a plane, ship or (IMO to a lesser extent) a city.

In any case, war is killing and is carried out by all sides in a conflict. Which 'Rogue One' actually touched upon in a real (and long overdue) way and I've always liked the Randall speech about innocents on the Death Star being "collateral damage" when the Rebels blew them up. When one stops to think about it, he's entirely correct.

Anyway, we should probably get back to talking Star Wars properly.

They aren't all psychopaths, the fact that they are having breakdowns proves this, the ones that have no conscience about it however are proto or full psychopaths. Soldiers who have seen conflict have awful PTSD issues, by virtue of the fact they are human.

Unless a person is subnormal in some way, they will have trouble with what they've done. It is a tangent but it's also one of the reasons SW is so appealing, it explores these dark themes in movies that don't need an adult rating. The key is does the character show empathy and remorse? I'll have to look at R1 again, but I don't recall Krennic being remorseful. Krennic works for the empire and they are the aggressor in this case, he has a choice but he chooses to act in a certain way despite knowing the destruction that will ensue. No matter what way he tries to square it, this makes him monstrous.

tigger123

david75 wrote: »

Rogue one into a new hope mashup is awesome
https://vimeo.com/209144283

Fantastic, thanks for posting!

As I said on the thread before, one of the things I enjoyed so much about Rogue One is how it informs and gives a new reading to Episode IV.

Also, finished Catalyst recently and would really recommend it, it's an excellent read.

Slydice

there's a link to a version 2 in the description
https://vimeo.com/209263699

Wedwood

One thing I like about these new movies is the way it gives the baddies a bit more depth rather than just being mere blaster fodder.

A deleted scene I'd like restored to Return of the Jedi is the one where the Death Star's Imperial officers react with horror to the Emperors instruction to destroy Endor despite the fact their colleagues on the moon will also be murdered in the process. The scene up the stakes for everyone and puts a greater urgency on blowing up the Death Star before it kills everyone on Endor.

It was perhaps seen as too dark a scene for the time, but it would really suit modern audience tastes for a bit more grit in Star Wars movies.

david75

Wedwood wrote: »

One thing I like about these new movies is the way it gives the baddies a bit more depth rather than just being mere blaster fodder.

A deleted scene I'd like restored to Return of the Jedi is the one where the Death Star's Imperial officers react with horror to the Emperors instruction to destroy Endor despite the fact their colleagues on the moon will also be murdered in the process. The scene up the stakes for everyone and puts a greater urgency on blowing up the Death Star before it kills everyone on Endor.

It was perhaps seen as too dark a scene for the time, but it would really suit modern audience tastes for a bit more grit in Star Wars movies.

One thing Star Wars has always avoided under George. Ignoring outcomes.
Luke finds Beru and Owen burnt to a crisp. Looks moody for a second. On with the story.
Leias planet gets blown up in front her. Almost no reaction or moment of depth following it at all.
Jedi was to have Han die and Kasdan fought for it and Ford wanted it to add a weight and sacrifice to the story and that loss adds gravitas to the victory. It came at a cost.

Lucas wouldn't let it happen. Nobody wants to see the heroes die and everyone wants a happy ending. Yes he actually said that.

The new films are doing a great job with this (though they dropped the ball blowing up 5 entire planets of the Hosnian system but you felt no loss as they didn't bother explaining what those planets were to give you any input.)
But the political landscape will feature heavily in 8 so taken as a trilogy it will hopefully all make sense once they're all out.

budgemook

I think I am converted now. Rogue One > The Force Awakens.

david75

You guys not watching Rebels are missing out big time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDHdOIymFAI

david75

If you're not gonna, at least watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no4SxdIIDBE

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

One thing Star Wars has always avoided under George. Ignoring outcomes.
Luke finds Beru and Owen burnt to a crisp. Looks moody for a second. On with the story.
Leias planet gets blown up in front her. Almost no reaction or moment of depth following it at all.

This is a problem that spans many films though. There's just not enough time in a 2 hour film to really portray the effects of loss and Star Wars moves at such speed that pausing to show Luke or Leia moping over people the audience barely (or not at all) know would grind the flow to a shuddering halt. Even Luke's grief over Ben is cut short by Solo telling him to get his arse into a gunnery position to repel an attack.

Off the top of my head, only 'Night of the Living Dead' has a character go into complete meltdown after losing someone. For the entire film Barbara is practically catatonic.

david75 wrote: »

Jedi was to have Han die and Kasdan fought for it and Ford wanted it to add a weight and sacrifice to the story and that loss adds gravitas to the victory. It came at a cost.

Lucas wouldn't let it happen. Nobody wants to see the heroes die and everyone wants a happy ending. Yes he actually said that.

I think he was right on that count. Han Solo is easily the best character in the entire series, bar none. Having him killed off would have been an awful idea. Ford only wanted it because he's always been a dick about the part. Lucas was keeping his options open and the possibilities of further sequels was always in his mind.

david75 wrote: »

The new films are doing a great job with this (though they dropped the ball blowing up 5 entire planets of the Hosnian system but you felt no loss as they didn't bother explaining what those planets were to give you any input.)

'The Force Awakens' was no better than any of the other films in this regard. Apart from the planets no one gave a crap about, Chewie gets pissed off that Solo was skewered, but five minutes later he's like "yeh whatever."

pixelburp

david75 wrote: »

You guys not watching Rebels are missing out big time

I've seen and heard the praise coming for Rebels, but honestly, I just can't get past the TV-level CGI. The Star Wars props and whatnot look as great as I'd expect, but the art-style & characters have that hideous ... stiff, floaty'ness TV CGI usually has. Watched that Obi-Wan clip, and putting aside the fandom the fight's so flat and lifeless. Genndy Tartakovsky it ain't.

It's just amazing we've had all this time with Disney controlling Star Wars and no sight nor sound of a live-action show. With the right idea it'd surely be a smash hit for whatever channel got it.

Tony EH

Agree completely. Just simply cannot get into it at all. Dreadful modelling, coupled with mediocre animation and a story level that rivals 'Caravan of Courage'. Absolutely flabbergasted at its popularity and in some ways quite concerned by it. If Disney think that 'Rebels' is the formula for success and not something like 'Rogue One', then Star Wars will be unwatchable for me.

david75

pixelburp wrote: »

I've seen and heard the praise coming for Rebels, but honestly, I just can't get past the TV-level CGI. The Star Wars props and whatnot look as great as I'd expected, but the art-style & characters have that hideous ... stiff, floaty'ness TV CGI usually has. Watched that Obi-Wan clip, and putting aside the fandom the fight's so flat and lifeless. Genndy Tartakovsky it ain't.

It's just amazing we've had all this time with Disney controlling Star Wars and no sight nor sound of a live-action show. With the right idea it'd surely be a smash hit for whatever channel got it.

There's an entire point to the brevity of that fight tho. Maul has been existing purely on his obsession with revenge on Obi Wan. He wants to kill him.
Obi wan is now a master. And a true Jedi. He doesn't want the conflict but he's forced to engage.
So it's a short three hit 'fight' as would be with a samurai. Plus they smith in luke at the end. Although he's only a few pixels tall


I hated these series too but the stories are totally wrapped into the saga and will be even more so in episode 8 and 9.
They haven't told us how but they have told us they will be.
If you keep in mind it's a kids to show but Star Wars you'll be grand. But Star Wars are kids films also. So..

david75

Tony EH wrote: »

Agree completely. Just simply cannot get into it at all. Dreadful modelling, coupled with mediocre animation and a story level that rivals 'Caravan of Courage'. Absolutely flabbergasted at its popularity and in some ways quite concerned by it. If Disney think that 'Rebels' is the formula for success and not something like 'Rogue One', then Star Wars will be unwatchable for me.

My pal was on one of those Disney cruises recently. Pablo Hidalgo gave a talk. About last Jedi and all of it. Read this
Pablo gave a seminar.

Check this out.

So, I got to attend a seminar/ Q&A with Pablo Hidalgo a couple of days ago. I know these points I'm about to cover would go in a lot of different threads, but I thought it would be easier to just condense them all here. Keep in mind I've been incommunicado for the last week, so if any of this has been announced or anything, I apologize.

1) the fourth season is definitely the last season of Rebels
2) I asked how closely events that happen in Rebels/ Clone Wars would tie into future events that would happen in Saga movies such as The Last Jedi. He said very much so
3) our favorite storylines in Clone Wars ( Yoda arc, Mortiss, Seventh Sister...) were all Lucas stories, and are absolutely integral to the understanding of the Force going forward
4) I asked him privately when the new cartoon was set, he wouldn't tell me. He said "go to Celebration."
5) they are VERY much aware of Yoda's line in ROTJ re: Luke being the last of the Jedi and the fact stragglers like Kanan and Ezra are roaming around the galaxy. They have no plans to make Yoda a liar
6) Episode 8 will answer A LOT of questions about the Jedi and what happened with Ben turning to the Dark Side. He did accidentally hint that info re: Rey would be answered as well
7) the time between ROTJ and TFA is definitely a fertile area for exploration and he gave the impression that there absolutely will be projects set in that time frame.
8) he really explained the different movements/ affiliations in TFA. So, the new Republic that is significantly smaller than the Empire was just as the Empire was smaller than the Old Republic. When the Old Republic went down, there were still all those factions left is the Seperatists that never joined the Empire and the never joined the new Republic. So it wasn't some huge galaxy-spanning organization. Since the fall of the Empire, remnants of it have been coalescing and eventually became the First Order. While they were building in power, Leia was trying to get the Republic to open its eyes and see what's happening. They wouldn't (reminiscent of the Jedi before the Clone Wars) so she and others created the Resistance to publicly oppose the First Order. I was glad he explained this. It makes much more sense now.

That's all that I can remember right now. Waiting for shuttle to show up to take us to rental car place so I thought I'd get this up while waiting.

pixelburp

david75 wrote: »

There's an entire point to the brevity of that fight tho. Maul has been existing purely on his obsession with revenge on Obi Wan. He wants to kill him.
Obi wan is now a master. And a true Jedi. He doesn't want the conflict but he's forced to engage.
So it's a short three hit 'fight' as would be with a samurai. Plus they smith in luke at the end. Although he's only a few pixels tall

Like I said, this isn't about the lore, or what demographic the show is aimed at: the actual character animation and art-style is ugly and graceless; even as the two characters started posturing with their lightsabres it just lacked any kind of fluidness in their movements. All stiff and posed.

I don't care how wrapped in the saga it is, how connected the stories are, if it's ugly to watch. All personal taste of course but Disney could have put more money in the character artists, or gone with an art style more expressive ala The Clone Wars (the Tartakovsky one).

Instead it looks like every other slapped-together CGI TV show ala the 'How to Train Your Dragons' series: lovely animation in the films, clunky marionettes in the TV show

eviltimeban

How did Darth Maul survive being chopped in two in TPM?

Tony EH

eviltimeban wrote: »

How did Darth Maul survive being chopped in two in TPM?

By extreme retconning. :pac: