Who was the true hero behind the Rebel Alliance's victory in Rogue One?

[russ_watters]

I saw on Friday and really liked it. I had seen some criticisms in a USA Today review, but disagreed:
1. Overly earnest tone. I think they were entitled to it.
2. Overpowering music (both too loud and overly dramatic). Just plain wrong. If anything, the music was weak. Part of the greatness of Star Wars is that the music is essentially the narrator of the movie. This movie's music did not live up to that. Notable that it is the only one of the 8 movies not scored by John Williams himself. Big mistake, but it feels more like a missing character than exactly a "flaw". Like, 'oh, wouldn't it have been nice if _____ had been included in the movie?'

Tarkin and Leia were not convincing. Obviously CGI. The facial expression were wrong and Tarkins voice was not as clipped as Cushing nor the right accent...

I thought Tarkin was pretty good, but Leia not very good. However, I think that the fact I was really looking for the CGI impacted my impression. I'm not sure if people who aren't very familiar with Star Wars (yes, there are a few -- especially kids) will notice. And there were a few other characters from EP IV who made appearances that I couldn't tell if they were borrowed footage, new actors or digital. I'll have to look it up at some point.

(ditto Vader)

Vader was voiced by James Earl Jones as always. His problem has always been that he's not a very good actor, so if he got the accent wrong its his own fault. Caveat being that his voice had no doubt changed as he has aged.

 

[russ_watters]

And there were a few other characters from EP IV who made appearances that I couldn't tell if they were borrowed footage, new actors or digital. I'll have to look it up at some point.

Ok, just looked it up: it's all three.

 

[dkotschessaa]

I thought Tarkin was pretty good, but Leia not very good. However, I think that the fact I was really looking for the CGI impacted my impression. I'm not sure if people who aren't very familiar with Star Wars (yes, there are a few -- especially kids) will notice. And there were a few other characters from EP IV who made appearances that I couldn't tell if they were borrowed footage, new actors or digital. I'll have to look it up at some point.

I literally had no idea. I thought the face was sort of familiar, but I'm not a big star wars fan, and I wasn't aware of or looking for CGI.

Vader was voiced by James Earl Jones as always. His problem has always been that he's not a very good actor, so if he got the accent wrong its his own fault. Caveat being that his voice had no doubt changed as he has aged.

I thought the voice was great, but found the physicality of Vader to be a bit off. He seemed a little to lithe or agile or something What made him a great villain before was never his movement, but a kind of intimidating stillness he gave off even when he was fighting.

-Dave K

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

Vader's helmet was off, I think, too much "neck".

 

[DaveC426913]

I thought Tarkin was pretty good, but Leia not very good.

I thought Tarkin was near perfect. Leia too.

But my criteria is less about if it accurately reflects what I recall them looking like - and more about whether they looked like they were still trapped in CGI-dead-eye.

I would say no. This is the escape from the Uncanny Valley.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

Tarkin's facial musculature moved better than Leia's. She looked like a balloon.

 

[DaveC426913]

Tarkin's facial musculature moved better than Leia's. She looked like a balloon.

It is possible that this is more an artifact of our having seen her constantly through an additional 4 decades on-screen, our impression of her changing as she aged 40 years.

Did she look like the 21 year old Leia as seen in A New Hope? When is the last time you watched it?

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

I haven't been following her at all, so probably not.

 

[Rubidium_71]

I thought they could have gotten away with just showing Leia from behind when she was handed the data. The flowing white clothing made it pretty obvious who it was and it was a very brief shot.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

I thought they could have gotten away with just showing Leia from behind when she was handed the data. The flowing white clothing made it pretty obvious who it was and it was a very brief shot.

I suspect they want the public to accept these images because the company will need them in future movies.

 

[dkotschessaa]

The only people for whom the CGI wasn't convincing were people scrutinizing the movie to see whether the CGI was convincing.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

The only people for whom the CGI wasn't convincing were people scrutinizing the movie to see whether the CGI was convincing.

After Bakshi's rotogravure and the ... odd ... art of "Fantastic Planet" I was just interested in seeing how far along they were.

 

[phinds]

The only people for whom the CGI wasn't convincing were people scrutinizing the movie to see whether the CGI was convincing.

No, that's absolutely not true. I thought for a second they were somehow using old scenes modified to fit but realized almost instantly that this was CGI.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

No, that's absolutely not true. I thought for a second they were somehow using old scenes modified to fit but realized almost instantly that this was CGI.

So you found them convincing. DK referred to people who went with the foreknowledge of the CGI and were doing a bit of pre-judging.

 

[phinds]

So you found them convincing.

I don't understand how you got that from what I said. I did NOT find it convincing. It was CGI[/QUOTE]

 

[dkotschessaa]

I don't understand how you got that from what I said. I did NOT find it convincing. It was CGI

I guess what we are trying to figure out whether recognizing something as CGI constitutes its not being convincing.

 

[phinds]

I guess what we are trying to figure out whether recognizing something as CGI constitutes its not being convincing.

Well for me it wasn't. It was an intrusive scene even though as part of the back story for "future" files (already shown) it was probably the right thing to do.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

I don't understand how you got that from what I said. I did NOT find it convincing. It was CGI

[/QUOTE]
Because that's how I read it.

 

[phinds]

Because that's how I read it.

An interesting example of how we all (well, I think it's all of us, it's certainly true for me) sometimes think we're being very clear in our meaning and yet others hear something quite different.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

An interesting example of how we all (well, I think it's all of us, it's certainly true for me) sometimes think we're being very clear in our meaning and yet others hear something quite different.

I'm married, so it happens all the time here. ;)

 

[sanman]

Saw the movie twice - I enjoyed it that much. I liked the whole Manhattan Project angle (in fact, the original working title for this movie was "Destroyer of Worlds"). Hardcore Star Wars fans may have known about it all along, but I was very surprised to learn what the Death Star shared in common with another famous weapon of the Star Wars universe. ("Only the largest stars have hearts of Kyber...")

 

[dkotschessaa]

Saw the movie twice - I enjoyed it that much. I liked the whole Manhattan Project angle

Wow, I totally missed that connection.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

Wow, I totally missed that connection.

I thought the pudgy colonel would have tipped you off.

 

[sanman]

Wow, I totally missed that connection.

Well, Mads Mikkelson's character Galen Erso is the Oppenheimer. If you liked Rogue One, then you may enjoy reading the novel "Catalyst", which provides the backstory for Galen Erso, Orson Krennic, and the events leading up to the movie.

 

[dkotschessaa]

After years of being a Trek fan I am not sure what I would think of myself if I read a Star Wars novel. That's like committing. But I'll think about it.

 

[sanman]

After years of being a Trek fan I am not sure what I would think of myself if I read a Star Wars novel. That's like committing. But I'll think about it.

Well, this one is written by James Luceno - the best in the business - and it makes for gripping reading. It even made the NY Times best seller list.

 

[DaveC426913]

The only people for whom the CGI wasn't convincing were people scrutinizing the movie to see whether the CGI was convincing.

Star Wars fans have loved Star Wars, warts and all, for 40 years. Scrutinizing its warts is a sign of fandom love.

I love going back and watching SW:ANH to see how quaint were the alien costumes, space effects and Hamil's acting.

I wouldn't love my Raggedy Andy doll (if I had one) any less with missing buttons and lost stuffing.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

"It's just a movie, it's just a movie, it's just a movie."

 

[sanman]

What gives Star Wars its enduring appeal is its vast and rich universe depicted through magnificent visual spectacle

I think this whole anthology movie series idea is about exploring the wealth of environments and situations in this universe, beyond the main established storyline.

 

[Rubidium_71]

I suspect they want the public to accept these images because the company will need them in future movies.

I'm don't see a use for either character in any future film. The 1977 Princess Leia shouldn't need to be CGI'd into anything else. Same goes for Tarkin.
Unless you're just referring to them using that technique in general. Either way, their CGI still needs some work in my opinion. Seeing it didn't ruin the film for me, but I wasn't impressed. Like I said before, they could've easily just shown her from the back. Tarkin they could've dropped completely, it wouldn't have bothered me. But it is what it is, I'll still pick it up on Bluray when it comes out.