Rogue One (Gareth Edwards, 2016)

Discuss specific films and franchises
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:28 pm

Re: Star Wars

#76 Post by captveg »

Rogue One is essentially the story about these lines in the original opening crawl of the 1977 film:

"Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.

During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet."

It's basically the Dirty Dozen, SW remix.
User avatar
Cold Bishop
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:45 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Star Wars

#77 Post by Cold Bishop »

The Death Star is the whole story, and it's not like it gets destroyed here. Unless they add a gratuitous epilogue. I'm guessing the plans for this were in motion from the moment the Standalone films were announced and if anything Abrams and Co. are to blame for stepping on this film's toes.
User avatar
tarpilot
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:48 pm

Re: Star Wars

#79 Post by tarpilot »

I might actually watch this if the three Gilroys do a commentary track à la Nightcrawler
User avatar
The Narrator Returns
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Star Wars

#80 Post by The Narrator Returns »

Werewolf by Night

Re: Star Wars

#81 Post by Werewolf by Night »

A full trailer for Rogue One just played during an Olympics commercial break and it looks REALLY good.
User avatar
RossyG
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 9:50 pm

Re: Star Wars

#82 Post by RossyG »

And here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frdj1zb9sMY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow! I wasn't expecting something so visually stunning. Really looking forward to his film.
User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: Star Wars

#83 Post by aox »

That does look fantastic
User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: Star Wars

#84 Post by bearcuborg »

I feel like the breathing/behind back shot should have opened the trailer, and then ended with a frontal shot of Vader. It's the worst kept secret tease to those in the know he's in this thing, might as well start showcasing him for the non-fanatics. That said, it does look quite good despite the production delays.
User avatar
Kirkinson
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:34 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Star Wars

#85 Post by Kirkinson »

Michael Giacchino has replaced Alexandre Desplat on Rogue One, apparently because the reshoots also rearranged the post-production schedule and Desplat was no longer available.
J M Powell
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: Providence, RI

Re: Star Wars

#86 Post by J M Powell »

Kirkinson wrote:Michael Giacchino has replaced Alexandre Desplat on Rogue One, apparently because the reshoots also rearranged the post-production schedule and Desplat was no longer available.
That might be the most definitive proof yet that this film is undergoing a major overhaul, not just a more-extensive-than-usual set of pick-ups and re-shoots.
User avatar
jazzo
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 4:02 am

Re: Star Wars

#87 Post by jazzo »

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure Gareth Edwards is capable of delivering a satisfactory story on any level. To be fair to his filmography, he only wrote MONSTERS, but once you removed the, admittedly, impressive sense of scale in his visual effects for his previous two movies, you're left with hollow skeletons of story, characterisation and pacing.

At least to me.

I've tired to sit through Godzilla three times, once in the theatre and twice at home, and fallen asleep at the exact same spot each attempt. The night I tried to watch MONSTERS six years ago was the night my wife went into labour, and I welcomed the respite from the film.

He's not a storyteller, he's a visual effects artist, in the same way that Zack Snyder isn't a filmmaker, he's an art director.
User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:49 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Star Wars

#88 Post by Jeff »

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm

Re: Star Wars

#89 Post by domino harvey »

Sounds like Disney pulled a studio-era Hollywood and actually made it better by meddling
User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Star Wars

#90 Post by hearthesilence »

To be fair, their meddling involved hiring Tony Gilroy to rewrite and reshoot a good deal of material, and Gilroy is definitely a great deal better than the previous talent. (His conversational commentary with Soderbergh on Criterion's BD for The Third Man is also one of the best ones they've ever done.)
User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 8:43 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: Star Wars

#91 Post by mfunk9786 »

If Kevin Smith likes it, oh man - gamechanger
User avatar
dx23
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:52 am
Location: Puerto Rico

Re: Star Wars

#92 Post by dx23 »

I got a headache after trying to read Richard Brody's review.
The director of “Rogue One,” Gareth Edwards, has stepped into a mythopoetic stew so half-baked and overcooked, a morass of pre-instantly overanalyzed implications of such shuddering impact to the series’ fundamentalists, that he lumbers through, seemingly stunned or constrained or cautious to the vanishing point of passivity, and lets neither the characters nor the formidable cast of actors nor even the special effects, of which he has previously proved himself to be a master, come anywhere close to life.
what the?!? Did he swallow the spirit of Armond White?
User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Star Wars

#93 Post by colinr0380 »

It sounds very much in the spirit of Edwards' Godzilla remake then (the film which pointedly never critiqued the motives of either military complex or the news media broacasting the monster's antics!)
calculus entrophy
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: Star Wars

#94 Post by calculus entrophy »

The director of “Rogue One,” [Gareth Edwards], has stepped into a mythopoetic stew [so half-baked and overcooked, a morass of pre-instantly overanalyzed implications of such shuddering impact to the series’ fundamentalists,] that he lumbers through, [seemingly stunned or constrained or cautious to the vanishing point of passivity], and lets neither the characters nor the formidable cast of actors nor even the special effects, [of which he has previously proved himself to be a master,] come anywhere close to life.

He has a pretty inefficient 50% yield.
User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Star Wars

#95 Post by colinr0380 »

You know what Richard Brody would benefit from (in this particular review)? The liberal use of brackets to go off on wild tangents within sentences. I can highly recommend them!
User avatar
jbeall
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Atlanta-ish

Re: Star Wars

#96 Post by jbeall »

A.O. Scott was less than impressed.
[W]hether the fractures in the Rebel Alliance and the power struggles in the imperial ranks quicken our pulses and engage our emotions — is the big question, but it really isn’t a question at all. Millions of people will sit through this thoroughly mediocre movie (directed with basic competence by Gareth Edwards from a surprisingly hackish script by Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy) and convince themselves that it’s perfectly delightful. It’s so much easier to obey than to resist.
I'll probably see it in a few weeks, and will probably find it (like TFA) something relatively enjoyable, but that I don't need to see a second time. (But who am I kidding? I'm trying to temper my expectations.)
User avatar
R0lf
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 11:25 am

Re: Star Wars

#97 Post by R0lf »

dx23 wrote:I got a headache after trying to read Richard Brody's review.
The director of “Rogue One,” Gareth Edwards, has stepped into a mythopoetic stew so half-baked and overcooked, a morass of pre-instantly overanalyzed implications of such shuddering impact to the series’ fundamentalists, that he lumbers through, seemingly stunned or constrained or cautious to the vanishing point of passivity, and lets neither the characters nor the formidable cast of actors nor even the special effects, of which he has previously proved himself to be a master, come anywhere close to life.
what the?!? Did he swallow the spirit of Armond White?
Ha!

He literally just articulated *exactly* the same comments as all the posters on the page above your post.
User avatar
MoonlitKnight
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:44 am

Re: Star Wars

#98 Post by MoonlitKnight »

jbeall wrote:A.O. Scott was less than impressed.
[W]hether the fractures in the Rebel Alliance and the power struggles in the imperial ranks quicken our pulses and engage our emotions — is the big question, but it really isn’t a question at all. Millions of people will sit through this thoroughly mediocre movie (directed with basic competence by Gareth Edwards from a surprisingly hackish script by Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy) and convince themselves that it’s perfectly delightful. It’s so much easier to obey than to resist.
Seemingly only further reinforcing the decidedly fanfic-y direction Disney is taking the franchise... :-$
User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 8:43 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: Star Wars

#99 Post by mfunk9786 »

Any Star Wars film written by someone who isn't Lucas is technically going to be "fan fiction," that's a toothless criticism
User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 4:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Star Wars

#100 Post by Big Ben »

mfunk9786 wrote:Any Star Wars film written by someone who isn't Lucas is technically going to be "fan fiction," that's a toothless criticism
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The best thing to happen to Star Wars was for it to lose George Lucas. As entirely adequate (or poor) as this film may be I'm certain it'll be an improvement over Lucas' poop jokes.
Post Reply