|
||||||||
Star Wars: Rogue One |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#426 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24,011
|
Quote:
TFA was a well made, fun film that was ultimately let down by ridiculous plot points and a general lack of originality.
Rogue One does a much better job on the plot but still struggles to give us anything new or interesting; whilst at the same time having duller characters and less humour. these 2 latest ones are enjoyable , but they don't half play it safe . . |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#427 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,552
|
Was disappointed by Rogue One, undoubtedly well made and shot, but the plot and characters were completely forgettable and lacked the sparkle of other Star Wars films.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#428 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,840
|
At the end of the day people want different things from films and DIsney have a vast financial risk with the franchise. They couldn't afford the first few films out of the gate to alienate the audiences like the prequels did, so they play it safe.
Hopefully at some point they will take the series in less familiar directions, but i've heard a few critics say that when it comes down to it the Star Wars universe isn't that big and that it's hard to make a film that is about something other than rebels vs empire/storm troopers/people discovering the force. |
|
|
|
|
|
#429 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 28
|
Good but not great. The Vader scene were probably the best and seeing him the bacta tank was interesting. It didn't think the CGI Tarkin and Leia were really well done and Leia looked something from the Battlefront game. I understand why they did it but it didn't look right.
It was a fun watch but not the franchises finest hour. |
|
|
|
|
|
#430 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 5,696
|
I finally got around to seeing it last night and I really enjoyed it. The scene with Vader was amazing. Could've done without the freakish CGI on Princess Leia at the end, but I still appreciated the cameo.
It was a bit sad tbh. Although it was pretty obvious it would happen,
Spoiler
|
|
|
|
|
|
#431 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 277
|
I was inveigled into seeing this in something called "4DX", which involved sitting in a row of seats that moved around and shook with the odd prod in the back. You used to get this from a kid in the row behind for nothing, while shaking seats could be experienced at the Odeon Haymarket whenever a Piccadilly line train passed underneath. The whole thing was pretty much pointless as hardly any of the seat movements had any relevance to what was happening on screen. Not that what was happening on screen was very clear as the whole picture was murky thanks to the 3-D glasses (the 3-D was feeble) on top of the usual dingy digital projection. It did not help that the cinema was one of those that did not have a proper 2.35:1 ratio screen but was showing the film stripped across the middle of a 1.85:1 screen. Do these idiots not realise that the whole idea of 2.35:1 is that it is WIDER than normal, not shallower. As for the content, the shaking seats were a distraction but from what I could gather there were no interesting, let alone amusing, characters and the attempt at a robot spouting one liners fell completely flat. In any case, we know what the outcome was before the start.
The experience of watching this in a crummy modern multiplex had nowhere near the impact of seeing Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back on their original release with 1,600 others at the Dominion, Tottenham Court Road in glorious 70mm on a proper screen. Todays "cinema" goers simply don't know what they are missing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#432 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,840
|
Quote:
TFA was intentionally filled with familiar beats / story because it had the burden of trying to re-establish the entire brand of the franchise. It needed to feel like the OT, so it therefore uses the OT template. Which is fine, because Star Wars has always been a remix of the familiar. And mission most definitely and triumphantly accomplished. Still, if one year on, you're still banging on about lack of originality as if the writers didn't know what they were doing and it makes you feel clever, on you go.
I was just saying that my personal opinion was that both TFA and Rogue One suffer as films from the lack of originality and (in the case of TFA) plot elements that stray too close to 'comic book' fantasy. I really enjoyed the first part of TFA but as soon as Hans and Chewie turned up and everyone gets chased by monsters I started to lose interest and they never really got it back. But that's down to my own personal movie preferences. I like most of Star Wars but i'm not a huge fan (apart from the KOTOR computer game which is amazing ). I appreciate that other people got more from it and that Disney obviously had other motivations than appealing to people like me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#433 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,186
|
Quote:
I was just saying that my personal opinion was that both TFA and Rogue One suffer as films from the lack of originality and (in the case of TFA) plot elements that stray too close to 'comic book' fantasy. I really enjoyed the first part of TFA but as soon as Hans and Chewie turned up and everyone gets chased by monsters I started to lose interest and they never really got it back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#434 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,104
|
Really enjoyed it, a good chunk better then ep 7 IMO. The vader part (and the final act in particular) was awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#435 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,046
|
Quote:
I was inveigled into seeing this in something called "4DX", which involved sitting in a row of seats that moved around and shook with the odd prod in the back. You used to get this from a kid in the row behind for nothing, while shaking seats could be experienced at the Odeon Haymarket whenever a Piccadilly line train passed underneath. The whole thing was pretty much pointless as hardly any of the seat movements had any relevance to what was happening on screen. Not that what was happening on screen was very clear as the whole picture was murky thanks to the 3-D glasses (the 3-D was feeble) on top of the usual dingy digital projection. It did not help that the cinema was one of those that did not have a proper 2.35:1 ratio screen but was showing the film stripped across the middle of a 1.85:1 screen. Do these idiots not realise that the whole idea of 2.35:1 is that it is WIDER than normal, not shallower. As for the content, the shaking seats were a distraction but from what I could gather there were no interesting, let alone amusing, characters and the attempt at a robot spouting one liners fell completely flat. In any case, we know what the outcome was before the start.
The experience of watching this in a crummy modern multiplex had nowhere near the impact of seeing Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back on their original release with 1,600 others at the Dominion, Tottenham Court Road in glorious 70mm on a proper screen. Todays "cinema" goers simply don't know what they are missing. It's probably the most visually and aurally pleasing cinema experience I've had. It's the third largest IMAX screen in the US, had a dual 4K IMAX laser projection, great immersive sound and 3D.....and in an auditorium dating back to the 1920s. A great audience, too - a near full (900+) room, with people being well behaved throughout the film.....even had the obligatory excited hollers when the "a long time ago..." appeared, which was greeted by a round of applause. Over $70 for 3 tickets, mind! |
|
|
|
|
|
#436 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,763
|
Quote:
I was inveigled into seeing this in something called "4DX", which involved sitting in a row of seats that moved around and shook with the odd prod in the back. You used to get this from a kid in the row behind for nothing, while shaking seats could be experienced at the Odeon Haymarket whenever a Piccadilly line train passed underneath. The whole thing was pretty much pointless as hardly any of the seat movements had any relevance to what was happening on screen. Not that what was happening on screen was very clear as the whole picture was murky thanks to the 3-D glasses (the 3-D was feeble) on top of the usual dingy digital projection. It did not help that the cinema was one of those that did not have a proper 2.35:1 ratio screen but was showing the film stripped across the middle of a 1.85:1 screen. Do these idiots not realise that the whole idea of 2.35:1 is that it is WIDER than normal, not shallower. As for the content, the shaking seats were a distraction but from what I could gather there were no interesting, let alone amusing, characters and the attempt at a robot spouting one liners fell completely flat. In any case, we know what the outcome was before the start.
The experience of watching this in a crummy modern multiplex had nowhere near the impact of seeing Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back on their original release with 1,600 others at the Dominion, Tottenham Court Road in glorious 70mm on a proper screen. Todays "cinema" goers simply don't know what they are missing. I don't know where you saw the film, but there are plenty of very good cinemas around the UK with great sound and pic quality. I would also avoid gimmicks of any kind, like 3D and shaking seats (which have been around for years). A good 2D IMAX screening is all you need, and a decent sized screen. My cinema of choice for big movies is the IMAX in Waterloo, London. Biggest screen in the UK and presentation is superb. BTW...that is undoubtedly the most pathetic comment on the movie I have read on this thread so far. You simply come across as peed off and bitter because you fell for the 'bells and whistles' scenario and didn't get what you expected. |
|
|
|
|
|
#437 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24,011
|
Quote:
A good 2D IMAX screening is all you need, and a decent sized screen.
I don't think there are any 2D IMAX screenings for Rogue One tho .
|
|
|
|
|
|
#438 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,807
|
Quote:
I don't think there are any 2D IMAX screenings for Rogue One tho .
|
|
|
|
|
|
#439 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,807
|
just seen it and i must say i really welled up at
Spoiler
|
|
|
|
|
|
#440 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,122
|
Well I thought it was miles more enjoyable than the abrams abomination the force awakens and after that I was a bit worried about another female lead but in fairness the Jyn character was a lot more likeable than the always annoying Rey
|
|
|
|
|
|
#441 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Utopia
Posts: 10,162
|
Quote:
Well I thought it was miles more enjoyable than the abrams abomination the force awakens and after that I was a bit worried about another female lead but in fairness the Jyn character was a lot more likeable than the always annoying Rey
|
|
|
|
|
|
#442 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,544
|
Ŵhat I thought was sorely missing from both R1 and TFA were the quirky designs and bizarreness of the original trilogy. Everything seemed very generic and bland.
For example, the asymmetric designs of the Millenium Falcon and the B-Wing fighters, with their cockpits mounted on the sides, against convention. The way Boba Fett's ship flew in that upright configuration. Cloud Cars, AT-ST walkers. Really outlandish, original creatures like the Rancor, Asteroid Worm, Jabba the Hutt and the awesome (original version) Sarlacc. I know that a lot of the designs were done by Ralph McQuarrie, and TFA did use some of his early designs, but I just felt that they could have taken a few more risks. The only ship that seemed to do so was that odd looking lander that Leia arrives in. That was great. |
|
|
|
|
|
#443 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,684
|
Just been to see it.....
1) Far too long 2) Can't say there was a single character in it that I cared if they lived or died; 3) What was the point of still being reliant on Braided Data Cable for a connection; 4) Was Darth Vader's appearance in the film really necessary; 5) Was Princess Leia's face not the worse CGI of all time |
|
|
|
|
|
#444 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,045
|
Quote:
3) What was the point of still being reliant on Braided Data Cable for a connection;
|
|
|
|
|
|
#445 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,046
|
Quote:
5) Was Princess Leia's face not the worse CGI of all time For starters, try the CGI Scorpion King. The CGI Tarkin and Leia were both very good. Not perfect, but still very good. |
|
|
|
|
|
#446 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Utopia
Posts: 10,162
|
Quote:
Just been to see it.....
1) Far too long 2) Can't say there was a single character in it that I cared if they lived or died; 3) What was the point of still being reliant on Braided Data Cable for a connection; 4) Was Darth Vader's appearance in the film really necessary; 5) Was Princess Leia's face not the worse CGI of all time |
|
|
|
|
|
#447 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,544
|
Quote:
Just been to see it.....
1) Far too long 2) Can't say there was a single character in it that I cared if they lived or died; 3) What was the point of still being reliant on Braided Data Cable for a connection; 4) Was Darth Vader's appearance in the film really necessary; 5) Was Princess Leia's face not the worse CGI of all time 2) Fair enough, your opinion. 3) For the same reason that the Millennium Falcon needs to be fixed with hydro spanners? 4) He was a major player in the Empire at that time, and it sets up why he was pursuing the blockade runner in Ep IV 5) I thought it was acceptable for the amount of screen time it had. |
|
|
|
|
|
#448 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,186
|
Quote:
Was you supposed too? it was a one off story and the writing was on the wall for all of them, no emotional connection really needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#449 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Utopia
Posts: 10,162
|
Quote:
If anything that's a reason to create a connection and make the audience care about them, so when their sacrifice comes the audience feels a sense of loss. As it happens, I thought the characters lacked charisma so wasn't that fussed when their time came.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#450 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,186
|
Quote:
For some films...this one didn't need to do it....it was to fill a gap and tell a story, which it did...we already knew a great deal of people died to get those plans, so we didn't need to feel the sense of loss.
PS: I'm impressed, that's two whole posts without you mentioning TFA is a copy of ANH. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:44.




). I appreciate that other people got more from it and that Disney obviously had other motivations than appealing to people like me.