Star Wars: Rogue One *spoilers from post 1195*

patrickSTARR

Havent watched RO yet, but without spoiling it, is it worth watching as a stand alone film or is it just worth watching to keep with the new story arc?

Tony EH

It has nothing to do with new stories. It's how the rebels obtained the plans for the first Deathstar.

It's best watched as a quad. Rogue One -> Star Wars -> The Empire Strikes Back -> Return of the Jedi.

patrickSTARR

Tony EH wrote: »

It has nothing to do with new stories. It's how the rebels obtained the plans for the first Deathstar.

It's best watched as a quad. Rogue One -> Star Wars -> The Empire Strikes Back -> Return of the Jedi.

Lovely stuff. I want to give it a bash before the next movie is released. Just never had time to watch it when it hit cinemas. Cheers

david75

patrickSTARR wrote: »

Lovely stuff. I want to give it a bash before the next movie is released. Just never had time to watch it when it hit cinemas. Cheers

What Tony said. If at all possible watch a new hope directly after it. It really does change and enhance that whole film. Sounds hard to believe but it's true.

patrickSTARR

david75 wrote: »

What Tony said. If at all possible watch a new hope directly after it. It really does change and enhance that whole film. Sounds hard to believe but it's true.

Watched it the weekend. Its a grand stand alone film and a nice companion piece to the original film.

tigger123

david75 wrote: »

What Tony said. If at all possible watch a new hope directly after it. It really does change and enhance that whole film. Sounds hard to believe but it's true.

I watched them (pretty much) back to back last week, and it really enhances A New Hope.

patrickSTARR

tigger123 wrote: »

I watched them (pretty much) back to back last week, and it really enhances A New Hope.

Ill watch a New Hope in the coming days, its been about 7 or so year since I last watched the original films so its long overdue anyway.

pixelburp

I don't see how it 'changes' New Hope. I mean sure, it adds a more specific timeline & context to that opening scene and Leia's attempted escape from Vader's star-destroyer, and I guess adds a little more urgency to events, but it's not like it suddenly alters scenes or interactions with characters to be more meaningful.

If anything, I imagine the jump from the grimy, slightly scarred world of Rogue One jars with the goofier, more cheese-ball universe of New Hope.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't see how it 'changes' New Hope. I mean sure, it adds a more specific timeline & context to that opening scene and Leia's attempted escape from Vader's star-destroyer, and I guess adds a little more urgency to events, but it's not like it suddenly alters scenes or interactions with characters to be more meaningful.

If anything, I imagine the jump from the grimy, slightly scarred world of Rogue One jars with the goofier, more cheese-ball universe of New Hope.

Personally, I've never found anything "cheeseball" about the original film. The 1977 version, not the shitfest "special edition".

As for 'Rogue One', it enhances that film by fleshing out the Rebels and their efforts to capture the Deathstar Plans. The logic of the trench feels better now and we know it was a guy on the inside that furnished them with the valuable info and it wasn't just some guy figuring it all out in a matter of minutes just before the Deathstar entered the orbit of Yavin IV.

Also, Vader's scene where he does real damage allows the viewer to understand why the soldiers of the Alliance were mortified of the guy and why his reputation struck fear in the hearts of everyone.

Does it make 'Star Wars' a better film? No. It already was one of the greatest films ever made.

patrickSTARR

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't see how it 'changes' New Hope. I mean sure, it adds a more specific timeline & context to that opening scene and Leia's attempted escape from Vader's star-destroyer, and I guess adds a little more urgency to events, but it's not like it suddenly alters scenes or interactions with characters to be more meaningful.

If anything, I imagine the jump from the grimy, slightly scarred world of Rogue One jars with the goofier, more cheese-ball universe of New Hope.

I never saw the first film as Cheese Ball. Its a bit more children friendly in a way, but 100 percent not cheese ball.

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

Personally, I've never found anything "cheeseball" about the original film. The 1977 version, not the shitfest "special edition".

Ah it's fairly cheesy, and that's meant as a compliment btw, lest you all think I'm being too cool for school. Of the three original films, the first definitely wore its influences closest to its chest, and those over-earnest 30s adventure serials really jumped off the screen in various scenes & moments. Luke's naivety was the most starry-eyed, characters the boldest and most melodramatic, dialogue most declaratory, and so on. Empire pared that down with some greyer edges, and Jedi tried to have its cake & eat it by straddling both sides of the coin; but in terms of sheer cheesy glory, New Hope was the high-point.

robinph

Must be a different definition of cheese, but if applying that to any of the original trilogy then it would surely be Jedi that it applies to.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

Ah it's fairly cheesy, and that's meant as a compliment btw, lest you all think I'm being too cool for school. Of the three original films, the first definitely wore its influences closest to its chest, and those over-earnest 30s adventure serials really jumped off the screen in various scenes & moments. Luke's naivety was the most starry-eyed, characters the boldest and most melodramatic, dialogue most declaratory, and so on. Empire pared that down with some greyer edges, and Jedi tried to have its cake & eat it by straddling both sides of the coin; but in terms of sheer cheesy glory, New Hope was the high-point.

Well, "cheesy" means kitschy, inauthentic or disingenuous. Fake, if you will, and unconvincing.

I just don't see anything cheesy in 'Star Wars'. I find it builds an incredibly realistic and convincing world, which was one of its greatest achievements. I suppose some of its story elements are a bit "twee", if that's what you mean, with princesses and farm boys etc. But, it never goes overboard IMO.

Now, something like 'Pearl Harbor' is as cheesy as fuck and never, even for a brief second, breaks out of its easi-singles wrapper. But, that and 'Star Wars' both literally and figuratively don't even belong in the same universe as each other.

I've always thought of 'Star Wars' as quite gritty and honest in its approach, even as a child. I never thought (an still don't) of it as a "kids" film. There's an awful lot at stake for the people in AGFFA.

'Return of the Jedi' though (while I still enjoy it as a lesser entry) absolutely does have some elements of cheese, I'll grant you that PB.

Ewoks anyone?

pixelburp

Popcorn; melodramatic; fun; goofy; whatever term you feel suits, but IMO New Hope was the original trilogy at its most enthusiastically earnest to please. Broad big strokes across the screen. If you take 'cheesy' as a negative that wasn't the spirit in which it was used; who doesn't like a bit of cheese in their diet.

Frank O. Pinion

Tony EH wrote:

Well, "cheesy" means kitschy, inauthentic or disingenuous. Fake, if you will, and unconvincing.

"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." Yet, they're speaking English. Yup, Star Wars is one of the cheesiest films ever.

Tony EH

[Nerd]Actually, they're speaking something called Basic, which has been translated into English for the audiences benefit.[/Nerd]

:P

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, "cheesy" means kitschy, inauthentic or disingenuous. Fake, if you will, and unconvincing.

I just don't see anything cheesy in 'Star Wars'. I find it builds an incredibly realistic and convincing world, which was one of its greatest achievements. I suppose some of its story elements are a bit "twee", if that's what you mean, with princesses and farm boys etc. But, it never goes overboard IMO.

I think it does go overboard and that's part of its universal charm & why it works so well; probably why it's such an immediate example of Joseph Campbells often quoted theory beyond the base popularity of the franchise. It's so grin-inducingly earnest, Empire's quite the slap in the face when you watch the two back to back.

Meh, yeah sure 'twee' is as good a word as any, but honestly I'd never mistake the world of New Hope as being authentic or real. Hyper-real maybe, but certainly not 'incredibly realistic'. I think what makes Star Wars feel convincing is that its world-building tends to start with a lo-fi, scruffy frontiersmen vision, which immediately grounded the world and made it more relatable than (say) the brushed & shiny futurism that tended to be sci-fi's vision of the alien. It's easier to emotionally latch onto a world of banged-up, lived in tech, even if brazenly defies science or logistical sense (lightsabres for instance, though I dunno if that's a 'science' that's theoretically possible)

Tony EH

It's "real" in the context of the film. The characters feel like they belong in the environments we find them in. Items feel used and like they could potentially exist. An X-Wing can convince me for the duration of the film that it can fly and make a sound in space. Obviously it isn't an actual REAL galaxy. But nothing in any film is real.

However, it feels authentic. It feels true to itself and that's what allows the buy in from the viewer. In contrast, the worlds of the prequels never feel real and that's one of their biggest failings.

As for "overboard", I never feel it does go overboard on it's twee elements. I find it quite restraint actually, in ways that 'Return of the Jedi' isn't with its Ewok nonsense. 'Star Wars' could have been saturated with silly nonsense like the Force, for instance. But, it isn't, it holds back in a considerable way. It's primary story is quite grounded for a fantasy film.

david75

Hold me drink

david75

Star Wars is a lot of things. It's not cheesy though.

aaronjumper

Tony EH wrote: »

[Nerd]Actually, they're speaking something called Basic, which has been translated into English for the audiences benefit.[/Nerd]

:P

Galactic basic you uncultured swine. Double ==>

Frank O. Pinion

Tony EH wrote: »

[Nerd]Actually, they're speaking something called Basic, which has been translated into English for the audiences benefit.[/Nerd]

:P

Why aren't the alien languages translated into English for the audience's benefit?

Osmosis Jones

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." Yet, they're speaking English. Yup, Star Wars is one of the cheesiest films ever.

There's a difference between being cheesy and having dumb abstractions that would only diminish the quality and enjoyment of the movie. To really suggest it's cheesy that people from made up planets speak a language we can understand is madness. I suppose it's also cheesy that these people just so happen to look like human beings from Earth too.

Tony EH

Cos they're filthy alien scum.

Frank O. Pinion

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

There's a difference between being cheesy and having dumb abstractions that would only diminish the quality and enjoyment of the movie. To really suggest it's cheesy that people from made up planets speak a language we can understand is madness. I suppose it's also cheesy that these people just so happen to look like human beings from Earth too.

Speaking English, looking like humans, the alien species, are all incredibly cheesy. For me, they're sci-fi comedy films.

david75

Peter Cushing on seeing Star Wars '...my only real disappointment was that poor old Tarkin was blown up at the end which meant I couldn't appear in any sequels'

..........

Osmosis Jones

"poor old Tarkin" is one way to describe him