Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

[Dementeleus]

1 minute ago, Amadeus said:

Just happened to have a wild night at the pub (after R1) where I and some friends ended up fighting with a bunch of 19 20 year olders who just kept on quoting RLM and who just didn't put any thought into analyzing the film in question and what it really is instead of what it is not. Just mad about that.   

 

But analyzing the film is secondary to me at this point. At a basic level, what comes first is my enjoyment (or lack thereof).

[Amadeus]

1 hour ago, Grand Moff Tele said:

 

But analyzing the film is secondary to me at this point. At a basic level, what comes first is my enjoyment (or lack thereof).

Agree, but in so many cases repaying viewings of a movie that you don't like -- or, understand -- can enrich your life.

remember 2007's Zodiac? I -- at least -- didn't know what to make out of it since it went from a thriller to be more a portrait of an obsessed man. didn't like it then. now it is in the top 5 2007. same goes for same year's Atonement which went from PERIOD PIECE to semi-surrealism. I'm pretty sure there are plenties of awesomeness in TPM for you, and the diggery you get the more there's to be found. may the 4s b w u

[Dementeleus]

Just now, Amadeus said:

Agree, but in so many cases repaying viewings of a movie that you don't like -- or, understand -- can enrich your life.

remember 2007's Zodiac? I -- at least -- didn't know what to make out of it since it went from a thriller to be more a portrait of an obsessed man. didn't like it then. now it is in the top 5 2007. same goes for same year's Atonement which went from PERIOD PIECE to semi-surrealism. I'm pretty sure there are plenties of awesomeness in TPM for you, and the diggery you get the more there's to be found. may the 4s b w u

 

I saw TPM several times when it was in first in theaters, more when it first came to home video, and had a nice fallow period of several years when I didn't watch it at all. While you're right that sometimes a new look at something will change your mind, I recently rewatched again with my son and felt the same as ever (if not moreso). There are aspects and moments I find entertaining (here and there) but overall it doesn't work well at all (for me).

[Amadeus]

1 hour ago, Grand Moff Tele said:

 

I saw TPM several times when it was in first in theaters, more when it first came to home video, and had a nice fallow period of several years when I didn't watch it at all. While you're right that sometimes a new look at something will change your mind, I recently rewatched again with my son and felt the same as ever (if not moreso). There are aspects and moments I find entertaining (here and there) but overall it doesn't work well at all (for me).

All said and done, TPM is a work by a skilled director and producer who wanted to tell the tragedy of Skywalker. He used a bottle neck structure, combined genres, presented his thoughts about subjects man has been dealing with since man was born, used a very personal narrative. It's almost as if you're in the head of George Lucas (learning about what he loves) watching this. And if you don't like what he has on his mind you don't, but calling it bad is a bit riskier. 

100 years from now, Satr Wars will be the bible, and the only movies (whatever "movies" will be in 100 years) to be remembered. except for Lawrence of arabia, that is...

[Dementeleus]

18 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

All said and done, TPM is a work by a skilled director and producer who wanted to tell the tragedy of Skywalker. He used a bottle neck structure, combined genres, presented his thoughts about subjects man has been dealing with since man was born, used a very personal narrative. It's almost as if you're in the head of George Lucas (learning about what he loves) watching this. And if you don't like what he has on his mind you don't, but calling it bad is a bit riskier. 

 

No, I don't have any problem calling it bad. It can have all the noble design and philosophical insight (I happen to think it doesn't have a whole lot of either, though it's not entirely empty), but if it's poorly executed, poorly acted, poorly paced, then it's a bad movie.

 

If I'm going inside Lucas' head, learning about what he loves and cares about, AMERICAN GRAFFITI towers above TPM in every conceivable way (except, I suppose, in terms of visual effects).

[IronJimbo]

Serviceable with an entertaining end.

[Hatebox]

5 hours ago, Amadeus said:

Agree, but in so many cases repaying viewings of a movie that you don't like -- or, understand -- can enrich your life.

remember 2007's Zodiac? I -- at least -- didn't know what to make out of it since it went from a thriller to be more a portrait of an obsessed man. didn't like it then. now it is in the top 5 2007. same goes for same year's Atonement which went from PERIOD PIECE to semi-surrealism. I'm pretty sure there are plenties of awesomeness in TPM for you, and the diggery you get the more there's to be found. may the 4s b w u

 

This post is getting dangerously close to suggesting that the Phantom Menace is at all comparable to the obsessive, detailed richness of Zodiac.

 

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. When the hype died down, TPM did not emotionally connect with people because there was nothing under the shiny bonnet.

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Hatebox

[Jessie]

13 hours ago, Amadeus said:

All said and done, TPM is a work by a skilled director and producer who wanted to tell the tragedy of Skywalker. He used a bottle neck structure, combined genres, presented his thoughts about subjects man has been dealing with since man was born, used a very personal narrative. It's almost as if you're in the head of George Lucas (learning about what he loves) watching this. And if you don't like what he has on his mind you don't, but calling it bad is a bit riskier. 

100 years from now, Satr Wars will be the bible, and the only movies (whatever "movies" will be in 100 years) to be remembered. except for Lawrence of arabia, that is...

 

Star wars will be. Rogue one won't be.

 

Btw I loved when you compared rogue one to zodiac. A repeat viewing won't make rogue one any less dull

[Jessie]

15 hours ago, Grand Moff Tele said:

 

Not at all, I'd be perfectly happy with the general story and sequence of events from the prequels had they actually been good movies.

 

Yes. The prequels had a great story to tell, it was just cheesy, badly acted and presented poorly. Neither rogue one or jj's star wars had a more compelling or captivating story to tell imo, lucas deserves more credit for his actually ideas 

[RandomCat]

37 minutes ago, Jessie said:

 

Yes. The prequels had a great story to tell, it was just cheesy, badly acted and presented poorly. Neither rogue one or jj's star wars had a more compelling or captivating story to tell imo, lucas deserves more credit for his actually ideas 

 

Ideas he took from Kurosawa, Flash Gordon, and The Hero with a Thousand Faces.

 

It's in all fairness Lucas had interesting ideas, he also "borrowed" heavily from other sources as well.

Edited December 20, 2016 by RandomJC

[Jessie]

15 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

Ideas he took from Kurosawa, Flash Gordon, and The Hero with a Thousand Faces.

 

It's in all fairness Lucas had interesting ideas, he also "borrowed" heavily from other sources as well.

 

Really? I don't remember kurosawas films featuring any jedi, the force or an iconic villain who in a surprise twist turns out to be the main hero's father becoming the most iconic moment in blockbuster history 

[RandomCat]

32 minutes ago, Jessie said:

 

Really? I don't remember kurosawas films featuring any jedi, the force or an iconic villain who in a surprise twist turns out to be the main hero's father becoming the most iconic moment in blockbuster history 

 

Jedi = Samurai. Just look at the clothes the Jedi wear are very Japanese inspired, along with their philosophy inspired from Japanese culture. Heck, a more direct lift is Hidden Fortress, 3PO and R2 are directly inspired by two peasants, Lucas has been on record several times admitting that.

 

Just google Star Wars and Kurosawa.

[Dementeleus]

Lucas would be the first person to talk about Campbell and Kurosawa being huge influences on him.... and in fact, he's done so in many interviews. HIDDEN FORTRESS contains a lot of direct and indirect parallels to STAR WARS, for example.  

[dashrendar44]

Problem is not that Lucas's SW rips off/homage = "GOOD!" and Disney rips off/homage = "BAD!" (or vice versa).

 

It's that Disney rips off/homage SW as the be-all end-all only like the whole world revolves around SW's 77 closing the universe in a loop that devours itself (TFA was just a movie about how cool it is to be an OT fan, riffing on SW choked full of self-reference just for the sake of it, that's why anybody who harbours no nostalgic feeling toward the OT can't connect with this movie and remain cold at the self-patting) whereas Lucas, like all creative artists, was inspired by everything around him (from Flash Gordon, serials to racing, B-movie schlocks, westerns, Kurosawa and samurai movies, eastern philosophies, universal myths transmission, Roman Republic/Empire, WWII and dogfights, Arthurian legend, sword and sorcery, heroic fantasy and so on) to enrich and open up the universe to new stories, new takes through the SW prism.

 

Disney is only interested in regurgitating the OT's imagery, script and sheen to cuddle fans trapped into an unchallenging and comfortable arrested development's bubble instead of craving inspiration elsewhere outside that SW regalia bubble like Lucas did to infuse his universe with new takes on archetypes, imagery and push the story further into uncharted territories, developing those ideas he borrowed all over the place to catalyse them through the SW lens. When you ask Lucas what inspired him to make Star Wars, he will quote Kurosawa, Joseph Campbell's writings and the likes, when you ask the same question to JJ Abrams, he will say that the only thing inspiring him is watching George Lucas SW: A New Hope a million times...Talk about having creative and artistic blinders.

 

Lucas is an iconoclast, JJ Abrams is an Amanuensis. I'll always have more respect for the iconoclast than the one who doesn't challenge what he copies.

Edited December 20, 2016 by dashrendar44

[Amadeus]

2 hours ago, Jessie said:

 

Star wars will be. Rogue one won't be.

 

Btw I loved when you compared rogue one to zodiac. A repeat viewing won't make rogue one any less dull

Rogue One along with TFA will be like those books and songs in the bible no one's ever talking about or remember, but they will forever be in this new Bible, and so will the EU cult. 

Regarding the stories about failed democracy, the final battle between good and evil, the fable about a young, fatherless boy who's been taken away from his mother going berserk and so on on and on -- stories told for over 1000 generations (or years). 

 

3 hours ago, RandomJC said:

 

Ideas he took from Kurosawa, Flash Gordon, and The Hero with a Thousand Faces.

 

It's in all fairness Lucas had interesting ideas, he also "borrowed" heavily from other sources as well.

 And those stories are pretty much what other men has told for a very long time. Samurai are not copyrighted you know. And Kurosawa too borrowed from others, lookin down from the shoulders of other giants. and flash gordon's good vs. evil too borrows from different sources. 

 

[RandomCat]

2 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

 

 And those stories are pretty much what other men has told for a very long time. Samurai are not copyrighted you know. And Kurosawa too borrowed from others, lookin down from the shoulders of other giants. and flash gordon's good vs. evil too borrows from different sources. 
 

And?

 

I was being very tongue in cheek. hence the . Everyone borrows. I wasn't trying to imply that Flash Gordon was a beacon of originality.

[Dementeleus]

Ironically, @dashrendar44, while of course R1 has plenty of homages and winks to the OT, Edwards, et al bring a whole slew of new (more contemporary) influences: BATTLE OF ALGIERS, "boots on the ground" documentary-style combat cinematography, Zatoichi, etc. 

[rukaio101]

1 hour ago, dashrendar44 said:

Problem is not that Lucas's SW rips off/homage = "GOOD!" and Disney rips off/homage = "BAD!" (or vice versa).

 

It's that Disney rips off/homage SW as the be-all end-all only like the whole world revolves around SW's 77 closing the universe in a loop that devours itself (TFA was just a movie about how cool it is to be an OT fan, riffing on SW choked full of self-reference just for the sake of it, that's why anybody who harbours no nostalgic feeling toward the OT can't connect with this movie and remain cold at the self-patting) whereas Lucas, like all creative artists, was inspired by everything around him (from Flash Gordon, serials to racing, B-movie schlocks, westerns, Kurosawa and samurai movies, eastern philosophies, universal myths transmission, Roman Republic/Empire, WWII and dogfights, Arthurian legend, sword and sorcery, heroic fantasy and so on) to enrich and open up the universe to new stories, new takes through the SW prism.

 

Disney is only interested in regurgitating the OT's imagery, script and sheen to cuddle fans trapped into an unchallenging and comfortable arrested development's bubble instead of craving inspiration elsewhere outside that SW regalia bubble like Lucas did to infuse his universe with new takes on archetypes, imagery and push the story further into uncharted territories, developing those ideas he borrowed all over the place to catalyse them through the SW lens. When you ask Lucas what inspired him to make Star Wars, he will quote Kurosawa, Joseph Campbell's writings and the likes, when you ask the same question to JJ Abrams, he will say that the only thing inspiring him is watching George Lucas SW: A New Hope a million times...Talk about having creative and artistic blinders.

 

Lucas is an iconoclast, JJ Abrams is an Amanuensis. I'll always have more respect for the iconoclast than the one who doesn't challenge what he copies.

Well, speaking as someone who harbours little nostalgia towards the OT (aside from, funnily enough, ROTJ) yet enjoyed the hell out of TFA, Imma have disagree with you on that point. 

 

Secondly, it's fairly unfair to compare the wealth of known references Lucas used for the OT with TFA. We've had decades since said OT were released for people to examine the OT in great deal, look for comparisons to other movies, find interviews with Lucas to talk about his inspirations, etc etc. TFA hasn't yet had that time or scrutiny. For all we know there are boatloads of references/inspiration from other stuff aside from the OT (which, fyi, is not a bad thing to be inspired by). But even if there aren't, who's to say that makes the film better or worse? Film writing/directing isn't like Pokemon. You don't get extra points for all the references/inspirations you have. It's what you do with what you have.

 

In fact, honestly, that's part of the reason I genuinely hate the whole criticism that 'TFA sucks because it's just ANH'. Ignoring for a moment that most films follow similar story structures, it's a lazy criticism that focuses on events that seem superficially similar rather than looking at how said events are actually handled. For example, in the whole 'TFA is just ANH' Han Solo's death is often compared to Obi Wan's. But really, they don't have that much in common aside from 'mentor figure is killed'. One takes in the middle of the final act, one takes place near the end of the second act, both of which severely affect their role and the emotion felt in the narrative. Obi Wan's death is designed to be the next step in Luke's narrative/development as a character, Solo's death is designed to be the end of his own narrative/development during the film (and possibly part of Kylo Ren's) and has little to do with Rey's development. Speaking of, Rey and Luke are both compared as people stuck on a backwater planet who dream of more, but their paths are clear quite different. Luke is a character willing to go along, but unaware how great his destiny is. His major arc in ANH is learning how to use and trust in the Force. Rey, on the other hand, is a character actively fighting her destiny (both in the form of leaving the planet and accepting the lightsaber). Her major character arc is learning to accept it (eventually climaxing in her summoning the lightsaber). Superficially they might look the same, but they're clearly different. And that's really the crux of the matter. Superficially TFA and ANH may appear the same and certainly there are a lot of similar story elements, but if you actually bother looking or thinking they're very clearly different films handling said elements in different ways with their own different visions. It's not like Into Darkness (one of the few films that can legitimately be called out for ripping off a precedessor) where they're literally saying the same lines word for word.

 

For comparison, I often take part in a short story writing contest on another forum I tend to frequent. Each month we get given a topic and write 1500 words on it. It's the same topic, but you still get a very wide variety of ways people handle that topic, from dark and serious to fun and irreverent. Now I'm not claiming TFA is as different from ANH as that (and neither should it being since they're both aiming for the same tone), but it is still appreciably different in the way it handles things. ANH doesn't have any major character like Finn, TFA doesn't have any major character like C3P0, Poe and Leia (despite apparently being in the same role) are very different characters who do very different things to their counterpoints. Kylo Ren and Vader are very different once you get into them (Hell, one of the major features of Kylo's character is that he's trying to be Vader and failing). The Death Star and the Starkiller Base...... Okay, they were both pretty damn similar, but there's a lot of ideas and imagery from the Starkiller base that I genuinely like more than the Death Star equivalent (like the time to fire being measured by the nearby sun going out).

 

Point is, for every story beat that seems similar to ANH, there's a shitton of stuff that's different. Don't get me wrong, there's stuff you can definitely criticize about TFA. There are a lot of lackluster elements in the final act (especially the space battle), there's a lot of stuff they really should've explored more (Finn's defection, Poe in the latter two acts), some muddled characterisation here and there, Rey being a Mary Sue (except don't do that because that criticism is equally bullshit (although that has more to do with the Mary Sue term in general being bullshit)). But claiming it's a bad movie because it has things in common with ANH is just plain untrue.

 

Oh, and fyi, everything I said above also applies to people who criticise Avatar for being 'Pocahontas/Dancing with Wolves with Smurfs'. That's also bullshit. I just don't bring it up much because I don't really care about that movie.

[pepsa]

5 hours ago, rukaio101 said:

Well, speaking as someone who harbours little nostalgia towards the OT (aside from, funnily enough, ROTJ) yet enjoyed the hell out of TFA, Imma have disagree with you on that point. 

 

Secondly, it's fairly unfair to compare the wealth of known references Lucas used for the OT with TFA. We've had decades since said OT were released for people to examine the OT in great deal, look for comparisons to other movies, find interviews with Lucas to talk about his inspirations, etc etc. TFA hasn't yet had that time or scrutiny. For all we know there are boatloads of references/inspiration from other stuff aside from the OT (which, fyi, is not a bad thing to be inspired by). But even if there aren't, who's to say that makes the film better or worse? Film writing/directing isn't like Pokemon. You don't get extra points for all the references/inspirations you have. It's what you do with what you have.

 

In fact, honestly, that's part of the reason I genuinely hate the whole criticism that 'TFA sucks because it's just ANH'. Ignoring for a moment that most films follow similar story structures, it's a lazy criticism that focuses on events that seem superficially similar rather than looking at how said events are actually handled. For example, in the whole 'TFA is just ANH' Han Solo's death is often compared to Obi Wan's. But really, they don't have that much in common aside from 'mentor figure is killed'. One takes in the middle of the final act, one takes place near the end of the second act, both of which severely affect their role and the emotion felt in the narrative. Obi Wan's death is designed to be the next step in Luke's narrative/development as a character, Solo's death is designed to be the end of his own narrative/development during the film (and possibly part of Kylo Ren's) and has little to do with Rey's development. Speaking of, Rey and Luke are both compared as people stuck on a backwater planet who dream of more, but their paths are clear quite different. Luke is a character willing to go along, but unaware how great his destiny is. His major arc in ANH is learning how to use and trust in the Force. Rey, on the other hand, is a character actively fighting her destiny (both in the form of leaving the planet and accepting the lightsaber). Her major character arc is learning to accept it (eventually climaxing in her summoning the lightsaber). Superficially they might look the same, but they're clearly different. And that's really the crux of the matter. Superficially TFA and ANH may appear the same and certainly there are a lot of similar story elements, but if you actually bother looking or thinking they're very clearly different films handling said elements in different ways with their own different visions. It's not like Into Darkness (one of the few films that can legitimately be called out for ripping off a precedessor) where they're literally saying the same lines word for word.

 

For comparison, I often take part in a short story writing contest on another forum I tend to frequent. Each month we get given a topic and write 1500 words on it. It's the same topic, but you still get a very wide variety of ways people handle that topic, from dark and serious to fun and irreverent. Now I'm not claiming TFA is as different from ANH as that (and neither should it being since they're both aiming for the same tone), but it is still appreciably different in the way it handles things. ANH doesn't have any major character like Finn, TFA doesn't have any major character like C3P0, Poe and Leia (despite apparently being in the same role) are very different characters who do very different things to their counterpoints. Kylo Ren and Vader are very different once you get into them (Hell, one of the major features of Kylo's character is that he's trying to be Vader and failing). The Death Star and the Starkiller Base...... Okay, they were both pretty damn similar, but there's a lot of ideas and imagery from the Starkiller base that I genuinely like more than the Death Star equivalent (like the time to fire being measured by the nearby sun going out).

 

Point is, for every story beat that seems similar to ANH, there's a shitton of stuff that's different. Don't get me wrong, there's stuff you can definitely criticize about TFA. There are a lot of lackluster elements in the final act (especially the space battle), there's a lot of stuff they really should've explored more (Finn's defection, Poe in the latter two acts), some muddled characterisation here and there, Rey being a Mary Sue (except don't do that because that criticism is equally bullshit (although that has more to do with the Mary Sue term in general being bullshit)). But claiming it's a bad movie because it has things in common with ANH is just plain untrue.

 

Oh, and fyi, everything I said above also applies to people who criticise Avatar for being 'Pocahontas/Dancing with Wolves with Smurfs'. That's also bullshit. I just don't bring it up much because I don't really care about that movie.

 

Yet for me it does.

For me TFA first 40 min were great, i realy enjoyed the hell out of it. But then the story went way to similar to ANH. I read you post and understand you point of vieuw. But i don't chare the same feeling. If i wanted to watch a deathstar being blown up I would have watched ANH or ROTJ, i realy realy realy didn't need a 3rd time of seeing the same plot. Like 2 times, fine i can understand why, i get the reasoning behind it. Like fool me once chame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I love the LOTR series, but if they came out with 2 sequels trying to throw a ring in to the fire of mount doom I would be pissed of by that, i would realy be. Yeah you could borrow the same ellement and the same tone, but plz keep it a bit fresh. They did try to do it with the character and for most of them it worked. The only flaw for me was the weak villan. Like I like his moral struggles, but man he's a trained sith and still coudn't beat someone with a blaster or someone who held a lightsaber for the first time. It just doesn't make sence for me. The CGI was gorious and the cinematography was good, beter then ANH but the story killed it for me. I rate it at 6.5/10 at best. 

[RobinHood26]

Fine TFA is a remake, but that makes it the best blockbuster remake of all time easily.