I watched it again this past weekend because the first time I saw it I was way too close to the screen (I reserved tickets online, and I couldn't tell by the diagram that the theater was really small, and that halfway back was still too close). I also took my girlfriend.

The second viewing confirmed my feelings about it - I liked it quite a bit. I think some of the characters could have used a bit more back-story, but overall I think I understood them and their motivations. Mr. Plinkett/Red Letter Media didn't seem to like the film much at all, and I think it's the first time I have disagreed with him pretty much across the board.


His initial commentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJgfxlgUIZY

And a rebuttal to comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9-vP7kJheI

I mostly disagree with him on Rogue One's merits vs. TFA. Of course no opinion is invalid, but to me, Rogue One's characters, story and emotions were far more significant and relatable than TFA's, but he sees it the other way around.

Another area I disagree with is context. I think this movie works and is perfectly understandable even if they don't explain all of the context, mostly because everyone knows the context by now. For example, if you made a movie involving the Internet in 1995, you'd probably have to explain it a bit, but if you made a movie today, you would just tick people off by taking the time to explain something they already know. I think Star Wars has become part of the culture enough to not need everything explained in every movie.

My girlfriend is far from a Star Wars fan, and her and I rarely discuss it because it just doesn't generally interest her, but she had no problem understanding the movie.

+1

The most impressive thing about Rogue One imho is exactly what you mentioned. It was written and presented in such a way that someone who had never seen ANH would still understand and appreciate what was going on. Sure, they would miss out on the little nods and references but that doesn't make/break the film.

My only minor complaint with Rogue One is that I felt the two leads (Felicity Jones and Diego Luna) were just passable. I found nothing that really stood out from their performances.

Saw it again this weekend with my dad. Was good still, but this time I didn't fall asleep at the end

I saw this for a second time, and I honestly cannot get myself to like it as much as others do. To me, this is closer to the Clone Wars and Rebels animated series than to any of the movies in the saga (from that context, I am OK with it).

I bet that without looking into the web NONE of you could remember the names of all the main characters.

You'd go: -"Well, there's Jen, and K2-something, and the Han Solo kinda guy, the Donnie Yen blind guy with the other guy, Forrest Whitaker guest appearance.... and the other... and the Director was the bad guy."

...and Vader, and Leia, and C-Threepio and R2, and Walrus face and AT-STs and Tie Fighters, The Death Star and... (you get the idea).

Characters that are bored to be in a war. With the only motivation to fight and die - Death Star is bad.

In comparison to ANH - Luke wanted adventure, to go to the academy, then he saw Leia's Hologram and wanted to know more, which took him to Obi-Wan, his family dies, meet Han Solo - character arcs.

The movie brings nothing of its own. It's a Fan film. A good fan film at that, but I cannot come to compare it to Empire Strikes Back. Yes, ESB was dark-er than ANH, but at least that one brought its own thing. Moved the SW universe forward.

I'm willing to bet that even if you did not like it as much, you had a better picture of the characters in the Force Awakens. Enough to know what you liked and did not like about them. In Rogue One they are cardboard archetypes, and generic at that.

Sure, it is "dark" and "gritty"....and in Star Wars, if you like Brown Spicy mustard, and your choices are French Yellow mustard and Hellmann's mayo, you are going to go with the yellow mustard... which means, even if it is not a movie that can stand on it's own merits, the fact that it is dark, automatically makes it your favorite.

Lastly - this story has been made in the old SW EU and in games in the past. A few of those were more interesting, and made more sense in the continuity of the story than Rogue One.

Fascinating post Bib and I agree with most of what you said.

I pulled this out because for me, it is the exact opposite. Where did Po come from? What motivated him, other than being a good pilot who is fighting the New Order? Why did Finn decide to suddenly reject his training? Sure, he said and did things, and seemed motivated to protect Rey, but I have no idea why. Rey was just as mysterious, but I'll give that a pass for now because I assume that is being kept a mystery to become part of the story in future films. Where did the New Order come from and what motivated any of them, now that the empire is gone? Why are there Resistance fighters and no army, and what motivates any of them to join the fight? What has the New Order done to garner such hate from everyone (prior to the firing of the Death Star III).

In Rogue One, I felt that G a l e n was clearly motivated to avoid assisting the Empire and protecting his family, Krennic was power hungry, as was Tarkin, as so many in totalitarian regimes are.

Cassian hinted at losing everything "too," which implied he suffered similar issues to Jyn and that was his motivation to join the rebellion. He was also shown as doing whatever it takes, and being ruthless, and that was his motivation for seeing things through - to feel that those actions were justified (and other members of the rebellion who joined).

Jyn was not really motivated until she saw her father's message, and realized things were bigger than her own issues, and she wanted to see her father's desires completed.

I am not sure what motivated Bodie to be so loyal to G a l e n, other than what he was trying to achieve.

I didn't hear the names of the two Whills guardians very well, and thought one was Bace but now I see it's Baze, and Chirrut I just never picked up on audibly very well. That said, I thought it was pretty clear what their feelings were, and what made them do what they did. They had a background as guardians, and were motivated to help destroy the empire that destroyed their home and purpose and threatened the ideals they had been protecting.

I'm not saying Rogue One had the greatest character development, but compared to TFA, it was much better in my opinion.

I agree. The New Order came out of nowhere. We can assume there were remnants left of the Empire, but why launch a new assault? How did they hope to rule? Just destroy planets until there was nothing left to rule? How did they expect to gain influence? Why was there no central military, and it was still a rag tagged rebellion many years later? It just seemed too vague when it came to the important lore aspects.

You are confusing backstory with motivation.

Motivation is what makes a character decides to go from point A to B in the plot and reinforces their development arc.

To me, backstory and motivation go hand in hand. Why are these people here? Why are they doing what they're doing? Why do they react to things the way that they do?

Most motivations require backstory, unless they're really shallow like "have an adventure."

However, this film jives with most war films. I've seen a ton of them and really can't recall the names of most of the characters that are there to fight and die.

The only character name I remember in Saving Pvt Ryan is Ryan, and he's barely in the film! If it wasn't for my grounding in its history, I wouldn't remember the name of anyone in Tora Tora Tora from the film alone.
Almost all of these films have had the stereotypical characters in them. The religious one. The farm boy. The quiet one that winds up being really strong. The gruff commander. The comic relief. Some are better than others, but they always boil down to the same ones.

This is a Star Wars film. It takes more from the pattern of those other films I listed than previous SW films.



The Jedi Master

Yes, good observations. The director did say he wanted to make a Star Wars war movie, so it makes sense that it would have more in common with regular war movies than the other Star Wars movies.

I disagree. You are still trying to relate two different terms. A mysterious character still has motivations. They are just not clear at the start, and through their actions, they are revealed to us, the audience.

Background in terms of drama, is filler. It is nice to have, but you still do not need to know in order to understand the drama in the screen.

Also, the fact that these characters are "like any other war film" and as a recent example, check Magnificent 7 for a very similar story too - supports the argument that this is another remake with generic characters.

It is more difficult to say, place the characters in A New Hope in a generic film, because we know more of the things that move them, therefore, they do not apply to any old character.

Take also - Blade Runner. All the background you need is given in the written prologue. No need to drag it on.

I don't want this to get tedious, so I probably won't go back and forth too much more, but I thought I'd reply to this. When you don't know a character's motivations, they might as well not have any, unless it's just to make you curious to find out. And how do they then explain their motivations? With their backstory. Why is this mysterious person protecting this character? Oh, it's that character's parent! Or they're a spy for an organization that has a vested interest in how things turn out, or whatever.


See above.


I am not saying that the character development in RO is great, just that it's adequate, and better than TFA.


Well, except for them having a four year lifespan. And developing their own emotional responses. And the need to have pictures and feel connected. And having memory implants. All of which is a big part of their characters and probably what motivated them to come to Earth, go to Tyrell Corp. to try to live longer, pretty much defining the movie.

I love this thread. It's like something you'd read over at AV Club.

Maybe a bit more fun item to discuss about Rogue One, but for some reason I got the vibe that the part about using the Hammerhead ship to push the Star Destroyer was kind of like something you'd see in the old X-Wing game. "The Y-Wings will disable the Star Destroyer, while the Hammerhead comes in to push it against the gate. Your flight will protect those ships until that mission is complete..."

The X-Wing games are available on gog.com, btw. I bought a couple and they run fine in Windows 7 and 10. I installed one on my Surface 3 with the Atom processor, and it actually ran great. Not shocking from a performance perspective, I guess, but I was pleased they were compatible.

hi guys, sorry for reviving this thread, I was really late but saw RO today and must ask you this:

didnt it bother anyone that the two star destroyers were juat parking in orbit (crew seemingly on home leave) and not doing anything? hell, the star destroyers ship with hundreds of turbo lasers and dozens of torpedoe launchers (if you played xwing you learned it the hard way). but in RO they just ... parked there next to the shield station. I understand know why Vader chokes his officers constantly - I would also if I had to restore peace and order to the galaxy with SUCH minions.

Did anyone besides me feel cheated/lied to when you saw the TIE Fighter appear hovering in front of Jyn or the stormtroopers wading through the water or the rebels running to a crashed AT-AT for cover in the trailer or in the Target commercial, but not see it in the movie at all? I wonder if that can be grounds to sue for false advertising.

v6,
boNes

Ratatoeskr, I'll have to see it again to remind me of what you're talking about, as I don't recall it.

bones, I know what you mean about so much stuff from the previews not being in the movie, but in a way it made the movie more of a mystery, so I'm not sure I minded that much.

The promos were from the original version, clearly. They reworked much of the movie. I THINK that's why we got a darker grittier movie, considering some of the cuts. A good move IMO.

Absolutely. This was a rare case where significant reshoots did NOT hurt the final film.