Star Wars: Rogue One *spoilers from post 1195*

budgemook

eviltimeban wrote: »

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

This.

I read up on it last night and I am very glad the films like Rogue One and The Force Awakens keeps this type of thing out of it. Rebels seems to me to be more "Expanded Universe" type storylines and I have no interest in that whatsoever.

Tom.D.BJJ

budgemook wrote: »

Rebels seems to me to be more "Expanded Universe" type storylines and I have no interest in that whatsoever.

I did have some problems with it too, but he is such a great character and pushed the story line much further. Hopefully we'll see a link to Rebels in TLJ

david75

Well like anything. You'll never get the Star Wars *you* want. You just gotta hope they paint in broad enough strokes that it acts like a catch all.
Stuff like Rebels is world building and expanding. Something they're doing very carefully.
They're laying track backwards and forwards. How much you choose to engage in that is totally up to you. You can totally get by and not engage with anything outside the films or like me you can get into the back stories and exploded narratives. They're doing pretty great at balancing that. It's some job.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

Well like anything. You'll never get the Star Wars *you* want. You just gotta hope they paint in broad enough strokes that it acts like a catch all.

Is this really true though? I get the Star Wars I want with Rogue One through to Jedi (original versions of course). That's the Star Wars I like and I'd wager it's what the vast majority are looking for too.

david75 wrote: »

Stuff like Rebels is world building and expanding. Something they're doing very carefully.
They're laying track backwards and forwards. How much you choose to engage in that is totally up to you. You can totally get by and not engage with anything outside the films or like me you can get into the back stories and exploded narratives. They're doing pretty great at balancing that. It's some job.

The major problem with the likes of 'Rebels' is that it literally for 7 year olds. That kind of expansion I can do without. I know Disney is trying to write its own canon now, but they need to be very careful at how they do it. Jettisoning all the other previous canon in the EU (of which the vast vast majority was utter pants) was a great move. But replacing it with more rubbish isn't. I know people like 'Rebels', but what the see in it is beyond me. It's nothing like the films and I find it odd, to say the least, that there's an overlap in audience for both. I know it's possible to like different things, but how someone can go from 'Rebels' to 'Rogue One' and view it in the same manner is just weird to me.

Even kid me found something like 'Droids' to be off putting, when compared to the films. It just seemed like Star Wars lite. That's what I get when I try to watch 'Rebels'.

Just cos you can expand, it doesn't always make it a good idea.

homerun_homer

Where did Obi Wan slice Maul in that Rebels duel to kill him? I expected him to be cut in half the other way but now it just looks like his sabre was cut and he dies.

david75

Tony EH wrote: »

Is this really true though? I get the Star Wars I want with Rogue One through to Jedi (original versions of course). That's the Star Wars I like and I'd wager it's what the vast majority are looking for too.



The major problem with the likes of 'Rebels' is that it literally for 7 year olds. That kind of expansion I can do without. I know Disney is trying to write its own canon now, but they need to be very careful at how they do it. Jettisoning all the other previous canon in the EU (of which the vast vast majority was utter pants) was a great move. But replacing it with more rubbish isn't. I know people like 'Rebels', but what the see in it is beyond me. It's nothing like the films and I find it odd, to say the least, that there's an overlap in audience for both. I know it's possible to like different things, but how someone can go from 'Rebels' to 'Rogue One' and view it in the same manner is just weird to me.

Even kid me found something like 'Droids' to be off putting, when compared to the films. It just seemed like Star Wars lite. That's what I get when I try to watch 'Rebels'.

Just cos you can expand, it doesn't always make it a good idea.

I'm with you. Totally. In the same sense that I think rogue one is a great movie. It's not a great Star Wars movie though. But if the standalones are setting up a different kind of film to supplement the brand or franchise well go for it.
There'll always be hit and miss. My miss could be your hit.
That's where I think they're doing great work in the catch all something for everyone aspect.

But if everything is great all the time, nothing is truly great.

david75

homerun_homer wrote: »

Where did Obi Wan slice Maul in that Rebels duel to kill him? I expected him to be cut in half the other way but now it just looks like his sabre was cut and he dies.

He cuts him down through his chest. They just can't show that Coss it's a kids show. (through they have shown far worse previously).

There's wisps of smoke coming off him in the close up/ face shots of him and obi wan.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

I'm with you. Totally. In the same sense that I think rogue one is a great movie. It's not a great Star Wars movie though. But if the standalones are setting up a different kind of film to supplement the brand or franchise well go for it.
There'll always be hit and miss. My miss could be your hit.
That's where I think they're doing great work in the catch all something for everyone aspect.

But if everything is great all the time, nothing is truly great.

There's a better balance to be made though. Making something truly for children, al la 'Rebels' will alienate a lot of your adult (and money providing audience). Making utter dreck like the prequels will go a long way to destroying your lore and the franchise and making retreads ('The Force Awakens') will only get you so far, before people start figuring out the game.

I mean the goal is there (the original trilogy), it's not like this is totally uncharted territory. To my mind, it's almost impossible to fcuk up Star Wars. But one way to do it is to have a wildly fluctuating target audience demographic. So instead of your audience merely thinking that a chapter is just ok, they outright reject entire swaths of the story completely.

Zubeneschamali

Tony EH wrote: »

Making something truly for children, al la 'Rebels' will alienate a lot of your adult (and money providing audience).

I disagree - Rebels is on the telly for kids and I don't watch it. Rogue One is in the cinema, and I knew going in it was more adult fare.

I wonder if they'll eventually get to doing a Logan or a Deadpool, an R rated Star Wars movie?

david75

Tony EH wrote: »

There's a better balance to be made though. Making something truly for children, al la 'Rebels' will alienate a lot of your adult (and money providing audience). Making utter dreck like the prequels will go a long way to destroying your lore and the franchise and making retreads ('The Force Awakens') will only get you so far, before people start figuring out the game.

I mean the goal is there (the original trilogy), it's not like this is totally uncharted territory. To my mind, it's almost impossible to fcuk up Star Wars. But one way to do it is to have a wildly fluctuating target audience demographic. So instead of your audience merely thinking that a chapter is just ok, they outright reject entire swaths of the story completely.

They haven't alienated their adult audience though. Rebels only has about 500,000 viewers I heard recently. Lot of that number is adult SW fans.
I reject the drek comment. Nobody sets out to make a bad film or series of films. We don't like them but there's a huge amount of people who do and if you're someone like Lucas who wants to go back and tell the origin story you're totally enetitled to. Just as you and I can choose to pay money to see it or not.
You should look at the numbers the prequels did. One or two of them is still in the top grossing films of all time
I don't see a problem with any great story being expanded upon and added to. There's gonna be hits and misses. Sure. But there's no reason not to do it especially coming from a point of view of crapping on it either before you've seen it or just cos you don't like elements of it.


They don't have a wildly fluctuating demographic. At all.
They have people like us in their 30s and 40s that are lifelong fans and they have a huge amount of kids coming up and growing up with it via the prequels and now Rebels. And then they have the majority of cinema goer casual fans.
You don't make a $2billion film with a wildly fluctuating demographic.

They're expanding the universe across every platform available to them in all sorts of markets. And it's working.
Lucas sold it for buttons if you ask me.

budgemook

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I disagree - Rebels is on the telly for kids and I don't watch it. Rogue One is in the cinema, and I knew going in it was more adult fare.

I wonder if they'll eventually get to doing a Logan or a Deadpool, an R rated Star Wars movie?

Why would they do that? Logan and Deadpool were moving closer to the source material - they are violent characters in violent comics. Why would Star Wars do that?

Zubeneschamali

budgemook wrote: »

Why would they do that? Logan and Deadpool were moving closer to the source material - they are violent characters in violent comics. Why would Star Wars do that?

Star Wars was a violent movie. When you swing a light saber, you lop off a bloody body part. Han shot first. Stormtroopers (think of the name!) slaughtered unarmed Jawas. Luke's Aunt and Uncle were turned into smoking skeletons, the whole planet Alderan was blown up as a demonstration...

The rot set in with RotJ before the teddy bears picnic even started: Luke goes nuts with a light saber on Jabba's yacht, and the bad guys fall down as if he hit them with a broom handle. That scene should have been pure mayhem.

Tony EH

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I disagree - Rebels is on the telly for kids and I don't watch it. Rogue One is in the cinema, and I knew going in it was more adult fare.

I suppose what I mean is that if they start crossing over stuff in a serious way. A lot of adults like 'Rebels' (I don't know why), but I'd say there's more than a few out there that have no time for it. Now, if Disney are going to mix and match the stories from the cartoon into future films in such a way that facilitates catching up with a show that you don't care for, that can lead to problems.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I wonder if they'll eventually get to doing a Logan or a Deadpool, an R rated Star Wars movie?

I wouldn't see the point in that really. 'Rogue One', to me anyway, is the direction that Star Wars should be going. Serious enough to appeal to grown ups, while not totally putting off the kids/young adult audience. It's, for the most part, grounded and the drama feels right. Plus, the characters respond to the dramatic events convincingly.

Also, I've no desire to see Finn getting pegged by Rey. :pac:

Zubeneschamali

budgemook wrote: »

Logan and Deadpool were moving closer to the source material - they are violent characters in violent comics. Why would Star Wars do that?

To put it another way, why did Marvel comics have violent sweary storylines like this when comics are for kids?

Because comics are not just for kids, and there is no reason SW has to be, either. The storylines of the original trilogy have violence aplenty. The presentation was toned down for kids (especially in RotJ where there are no bloody light saber injuries), but the stories include slaughter, torture and even whole planets of people killed as a demonstration.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

They haven't alienated their adult audience though. Rebels only has about 500,000 viewers I heard recently. Lot of that number is adult SW fans.

Perhaps. But, I'd wager there are many, many adult Star Wars fans that watched 'Rebels' and rejected it as someone for the kids.

david75 wrote: »

I reject the drek comment.

You can reject all you want, but they are fcuking terrible, terrible films, that go a great length to really screwing up the story in major ways.

david75 wrote: »

Nobody sets out to make a bad film or series of films. We don't like them but there's a huge amount of people who do and if you're someone like Lucas who wants to go back and tell the origin story you're totally enetitled to. Just as you and I can choose to pay money to see it or not.

I'm not saying that Lucas set out to make shite films, nobody does and yes he was completely entitled to make any film he wanted to. But shite is exactly what we ended up with. I also don't care what other people like. They can like what they want and excuse anything they wish. There are those that'll gloss over any number of awful things. I won't. I gave them more than enough chances, but they are simply rubbish. They just don't exist AFAIC and Star Wars as a saga is infinitely better for their exclusion.

david75 wrote: »

You should look at the numbers the prequels did. One or two of them is still in the top grossing films of all time

I don't care about this. Something making money is not an indication of quality.

david75 wrote: »

I don't see a problem with any great story being expanded upon and added to. There's gonna be hits and misses. Sure. But there's no reason not to do it especially coming from a point of view of crapping on it either before you've seen it or just cos you don't like elements of it.

I do when those expansions are stupid and ultimately damaging to the logic and enjoyment of the story. Darth Vader making C3PO? Stupid. Darth Maul coming back after not only getting cut in half, but falling down a lengthy drop? Stupid.

I can do without the stupid.

Tony EH

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Star Wars was a violent movie. When you swing a light saber, you lop off a bloody body part. Han shot first. Stormtroopers (think of the name!) slaughtered unarmed Jawas. Luke's Aunt and Uncle were turned into smoking skeletons, the whole planet Alderan was blown up as a demonstration...

Agreed and I think a lot of people forget this when they say that Star Wars is "for kids". Kids can enjoy it, as I did, but it wasn't specifically for 4 year olds.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The rot set in with RotJ before the teddy bears picnic even started: Luke goes nuts with a light saber on Jabba's yacht, and the bad guys fall down as if he hit them with a broom handle. That scene should have been pure mayhem.

While I have no problem with the lack of the obvious gore that would result from a lightsaber strike, including such things wouldn't benefit the story in any real way.

But, yeh, you could see the writing on the wall with Lucas' decisions in 'Return of the Jedi'. The teddy bear marketing superseded the drama in many respects.

That said, 'Return of the Jedi' still retains just enough ump to still keep me coming back. The bookend sequences are still spectacular, even if I want to hunt down an murder every Ewok in the most awful way.

Imagine 'Return of the Jedi' with the original idea of Wookiees?

eviltimeban

Tony EH wrote: »

Also, I've no desire to see Finn getting pegged by Poe. :pac:

FYP. :pac:

david75

Tony EH wrote: »

Perhaps. But, I'd wager there are many, many adult Star Wars fans that watched 'Rebels' and rejected it as someone for the kids.



You can reject all you want, but they are fcuking terrible, terrible films, that go a great length to really screwing up the story in major ways.



I'm not saying that Lucas set out to make shite films, nobody does and yes he was completely entitled to make any film he wanted to. But shite is exactly what we ended up with. I also don't care what other people like. They can like what they want and excuse anything they wish. There are those that'll gloss over any number of awful things. I won't. I gave them more than enough chances, but they are simply rubbish. They just don't exist AFAIC and Star Wars as a saga is infinitely better for their exclusion.



I don't care about this. Something making money is not an indication of quality.



I do when those expansions are stupid and ultimately damaging to the logic and enjoyment of the story. Darth Vader making C3PO? Stupid. Darth Maul coming back after not only getting cut in half, but falling down a lengthy drop? Stupid.

I can do without the stupid.

That's all fine. But your stupid is someone else's great time. (Not any of the stuff you mentioned though I agree) but you know what I mean.
My housemate loves jar jar. He's not a Star Wars fan and watched them on sky over the past weeks and was laughing his head off at jar jar.

I'm baffled too but just cos I hate him doesn't mean we all have to.

TherapyBoy

You should tell him about the 'Jar jar is a Sith lord' theory & blow his mind.

david75

TherapyBoy wrote: »

You should tell him about the 'Jar jar is a Sith lord' theory & blow his mind.

Haha! It would blow his mind.

To be fair it's pretty sh!tty the way they wrote Jar jars end in that Empires end book. Really sad and unfair tbh. But of course millions of prequel haters danced in glee when they read it.

david75

Imagine krennic had made it to bending his knees in front of the emperor.
He is totally relatable as a career ladder climber. But he would have withered under Palpatines gaze.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

That's all fine. But your stupid is someone else's great time. (Not any of the stuff you mentioned though I agree) but you know what I mean.
My housemate loves jar jar. He's not a Star Wars fan and watched them on sky over the past weeks and was laughing his head off at jar jar.

I'm baffled too but just cos I hate him doesn't mean we all have to.

Honestly, anyone over 10 who likes Jar Jar is just doing it wrong.

There is nothing to like.

budgemook

Tony EH wrote: »

Honestly, anyone over 10 who likes Jar Jar is just doing it wrong.

There is nothing to like.

Maybe his friend is racist

david75

Just goes to show there's no accounting for taste


'Taste is the enemy of art'

pauldla

david75 wrote: »

Just goes to show there's no accounting for taste


'Taste is the enemy of art'

Does that mean that Jar Jar is art....? :eek:

david75

pauldla wrote: »

Does that mean that Jar Jar is art....? :eek:

Well he is


From a certain point of view

Tony EH

A mate of mine brought this over last night and we watched it.

It was even better than I remembered it being in the cinema. I actually think it's near to rivaling 'The Empire Strikes Back' for the "best Star Wars" mantle.

Its steady buildup to easily the best Star Wars battle is very well handled and I was easier about it this time because I knew that that battle was coming up. That allowed me to actually sit back and really enjoy the sections before. In the cinema I didn't know where the film was going and, frankly was waiting for it to fall on its arse, so I couldn't truly enjoy all the detail provided, even though I thought it was great.

So perfect is 'Rogue One' as a prequel that we immediately put on the original 'Star Wars' (Harmy version) and stayed up til 2 in the bloody morning.

Despite a few hic-ups here and there and a couple of questionable CGI ideas, it's damn near perfect.

david75

That's deadly. And watching a new hope afterwards is a top class idea. Puts it in a whole new light in many ways.

Bacchus

Tony EH wrote: »

Its steady buildup to easily the best Star Wars battle is very well handled and I was easier about it this time because I knew that that battle was coming up. That allowed me to actually sit back and really enjoy the sections before. In the cinema I didn't know where the film was going and, frankly was waiting for it to fall on its arse, so I couldn't truly enjoy all the detail provided, even though I thought it was great.

I actually had no idea of the scale of the battle they were going for in RO when I went to the cinema so I was much like you... enjoying it but unsure of it ended with just the beach battle which would have been a bit flat. Seeing the battle unfold and getting bigger and bigger was awesome. Really looking forward to watching again so, as you put it, I can appreciate the build up more

pixelburp

Bacchus wrote: »

I actually had no idea of the scale of the battle they were going for in RO when I went to the cinema so I was much like you... enjoying it but unsure of it ended with just the beach battle which would have been a bit flat. Seeing the battle unfold and getting bigger and bigger was awesome. Really looking forward to watching again so, as you put it, I can appreciate the build up more

I've banged the drum before & elsewhere, but I definitely think Disney showed a lot of nous in hiring Gareth Edwards; he has his flaws but absolutely knows how to handle & compose objects of massive scale. A lesser director would have let that set-piece devolve into showy, floaty CGI & lost the scope of it all.