|
It's hard to say it's not a character driven movie when the climax relies on a specific character and her history that they hammered home for half the film to solve the plot.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
PT6A posted:Honestly, it sounds like most of the criticisms are focused around the fact that this movie was not a character-driven piece. And, if that's what you wanted or would have preferred, that's okay -- but don't argue from the position that every story has to be character-driven. It can simply be a matter of personal preference. If Rogue One isn't trying to be a character-driven piece then it shouldn't spend 2/3rds of the film pretending to be one. It's pretty goddamn weird that people are going "it isn't a character-driven story" for a story that spends more time on Jyn Urso's Family Drama than anything else that isn't an X-Wing shooting a Tie Fighter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Harlock posted:It's hard to say it's not a character driven movie when the climax relies on a specific character and her history that they hammered home for half the film to solve the plot. AKA every action movie ever made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:AKA every action movie ever made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Harlock posted:It's hard to say it's not a character driven movie when the climax relies on a specific character and her history that they hammered home for half the film to solve the plot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
temple posted:Jyn and Cassian climaxed as characters long before the climax of the film. That is the problem people are having. Most films align the characters with the film but Rogue One isn't about the characters. So the film's arc and the characters' arc are sequenced differently. Different isn't bad. So if Rogue One isn't about the characters why does it spend 2/3rds of the film being about the characters?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Rogue One spends a lot more time on Jyn's backstory and character than Saving Private Ryan or Dirty Dozen or Guns of Navarone do on any of their characters. Nah, Tom Hanks gets a lot more. But that movie is 30 minutes longer as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Rogue One spends a lot more time on Jyn's backstory and character than Saving Private Ryan or Dirty Dozen or Guns of Navarone do on any of their characters. It does gently caress all with that time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Someone name a movie they consider good that isn't about characters
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:So if Rogue One isn't about the characters why does it spend 2/3rds of the film being about the characters?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Someone name a movie they consider good that isn't about characters Koyaanisqatsi. temple posted:Is about the characters or not? I cannot follow the conflicting diagnosis people are launching at Rogue One? "It has paper thin characters but now is 2/3rds about the characters". Yeah, basically. Jyn's got an arc and motivations but they aren't developed well enough. I assume it was due to the reshoots, in the same way that Saw's character seems a bit toothless despite being called an extremist. Doctor Spaceman fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
temple posted:Is about the characters or not? I cannot follow the conflicting diagnosis people are launching at Rogue One? "It has paper thin characters but now is 2/3rds about the characters". ... yes? Being about the characters doesn't actually mean they did a good job at it. | We still open with Babby Jyn and then follow her as she traces her family's legacy to the foster dad who abandoned her to her true father to the legacy her father left behind and her responses to those things. They're just not very good because Jyn is not really given a strong enough characterization. (Likely because at some point she was a militant Rebel which would suddenly have made a lot of the plot hold together better.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
temple posted:"It has paper thin characters but now is 2/3rds about the characters". Exactly
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Someone name a movie they consider good that isn't about characters Arguably The Road Warrior.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Someone name a movie they consider good that isn't about characters
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
temple posted:Jyn and Cassian climaxed as characters long before the climax of the film. That is the problem people are having. Most films align the characters with the film but Rogue One isn't about the characters. So the film's arc and the characters' arc are sequenced differently. Different isn't bad. I think Jyn's character is likely the inherent problem with the tone of the movie. I get the point is to tell the story of how the Death Star plans are received. If that was the sole focus they shouldn't have spent so much time with her convoluted back story just to get the to the "Rosebud" in the finale. The film would have likely been stronger if we didn't need to get to know her or her personal stakes/reasons. Diego Lunas character alludes to his reasons for opposing the empire but it works in the context and it's enough to carry his arc in fulfilling the plot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:So if Rogue One isn't about the characters why does it spend 2/3rds of the film being about the characters? Typically, character driven movies focus around the individual goals of the characters with that being fulfilled in the climax. Ensemble, etc. movies fulfill the character goals before the final act with everyone then centering around the shared goal. Typically. I have no problems with particular criticisms about the characters, by the way. That leads to interesting discussion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Someone name a movie they consider good that isn't about characters Fantasia
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Someone name a movie they consider good that isn't about characters The Matrix comes to mind -- it's much more an idea-driven film than a character-driven film. Kill Bill, for an event-driven film. EDIT: Avatar, for a setting-driven film. PT6A fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Darko posted:Typically, character driven movies focus around the individual goals of the characters with that being fulfilled in the climax. Ensemble, etc. movies fulfill the character goals before the final act with everyone then centering around the shared goal. Even then in Ensemble films the climax usually does involve action and themes that best fit the character and their growth. Rogue One isn't a complete failure at that but it really suffers for taking the two characters who've gotten the most screentime and locking them in a vault to find a USB key where the biggest drama is if they can figure out what the right filename is. It's not really thematically appropriate and the "Stardust" moment feels ill-earned because we already saw Mads explain literally everything to Jyn in the initial reveal. If Stardust had been the big reveal that Mads had been thinking of her the entire time then ti might be more relevant but instead it's just "Oh, he was thinking of me (and chose a horribly depressing nickname for his weapon to boot), something he already told me at great length in his video message." For all that I'm critical I will say that I do think Bodhi was handled well. He's given a small but complete arc and shows small human moments of heroism. Chirrut's is a little weaker because "I believe in the Force, and the Force is with me" would have more impact if he wasn't bullseyeing poo poo and beating up Stormtroopers while blind. There's no doubt that The Force is with him and so what should be a dramatic moment is "oh, he's doing the same poo poo he's done all film." ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Someone name a movie they consider good that isn't about characters Psycho. It purposely surprises the audience by breaking the character arc; starting character driven and becomes guided by events after killing the focus character.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Just finished watching the Half in the Bag review, and I agree with them 100%. This movie could have been so much more than a nostalgia-fest but it just wasn't, I know that the Star Wars franchise is capable of more than this. "The best Star Wars fan film of all time" is an apt description.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Honestly, thinking about it, a big part of my problem with Rogue One's climax is that they couldn't keep it in their metaphorical pants until the appropriate time. Jyn's concern with her father is resolved by Mads' overly-long-and-detailed message. Chirrut is pulling off Force-Guided Tricks so often that when his big moment of proof and payoff comes it lacks punch. Cassian chooses not to pull the trigger all on his own and that weakens his eventual decision to support Jyn. Each of these plot points, with a little more restrain and confidence, would have played out in the climax much more satisfactorily. There are a lot of strong climax moments in Rogue One that are undercut by something beforehand and so they lose their impact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:I feel kinda bad for thinking the empire is so cool and they should win. Rogue One not only plops us down on the streets (both literally and figuratively) to see what it's like to live under Imperial occupation, but it makes the Death Star feel like the unbelievably powerful, destructive force of terror that it is. The incredibly colossal roaring wave of destruction bearing down on the insignificantly small heroes is one of those images that's sticking in my head from the movie. It's terrifying in a way that a long-distance shot of Alderaan just can't be. (That's not a condemnation of ANH, by the way, since it's trying to do very different things with that scene.) And not to dump on TFA too much, but it's remarkable just how much more horror is invoked by a simple ground-level and character-based perspective of the destruction of a single city than there is by Starkiller Base blowing up five planets we've never heard of with people we don't care about. To segue a little bit, this was something pointed out as early as the first trailers, but Edwards just captures a sheer sense of scale in a way that I'm not sure any other Star Wars movie has before. There's individual shots and parts in other movies, of course, like the Executor overshadowing the other Star Destroyers in ESB, or the Falcon entering the Death Star. But everything in this movie just feels so huge - the Death Star, the Death Star's impact, the simple Star Destroyer, even background details like the statues on Jedha. Not just physically big, but shot in a way that emphasizes their hugeness - angles that don't get the whole thing in frame, shots from below, using other objects and characters for scale. Not only is it a perfect fit for the big style of space opera that is Star Wars, it's also very thematically appropriate; the movie is about small figures caught up in something much larger than themselves, and that's apparent in every scene that shows just how insignificant they are next to the galactic forces at play.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
LanceKing2200 posted:Just finished watching the Half in the Bag review, and I agree with them 100%. This movie could have been so much more than a nostalgia-fest but it just wasn't, I know that the Star Wars franchise is capable of more than this. I can't really stand watching HitB anymore. They used to have pretty interesting discussions and now they just shout and pander to the most obvious viewpoint. BotW is still good though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
You could argue all day about which movies are "about" the characters. Its semantics. The bottom line is that 99.9% of the good movies have engaging, memorable characters and if someone is saying that the characters in Rogue One didn't do it for them, "its not a character driven movie" isn't really a meaningful response.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Engaging characters is an opinion, and the differences are where discussions come from. I didn't find Rey, Finn, or BB8 engaging at all, others did. I found these characters more engaging and others didn't. It's hard to make objective statements with a movie like this to back it up with, and it comes from a matter of perspective and what you bring in. The score objectively sucked though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:You could argue all day about which movies are "about" the characters. Its semantics. The bottom line is that 99.9% of the good movies have engaging, memorable characters and if someone is saying that the characters in Rogue One didn't do it for them, "its not a character driven movie" isn't really a meaningful response. Saying, "I didn't like it because it wasn't character-driven enough for me," is different from saying, "it's bad because I think the characters were poorly developed." If someone hates the Big Lebowski because it has a weak-rear end plot, that's their business, but that doesn't mean its lack of plot makes it a bad movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:Rogue One not only plops us down on the streets (both literally and figuratively) to see what it's like to live under Imperial occupation, but it makes the Death Star feel like the unbelievably powerful, destructive force of terror that it is. The incredibly colossal roaring wave of destruction bearing down on the insignificantly small heroes is one of those images that's sticking in my head from the movie. It's terrifying in a way that a long-distance shot of Alderaan just can't be. (That's not a condemnation of ANH, by the way, since it's trying to do very different things with that scene.) And not to dump on TFA too much, but it's remarkable just how much more horror is invoked by a simple ground-level and character-based perspective of the destruction of a single city than there is by Starkiller Base blowing up five planets we've never heard of with people we don't care about. What are you talking about here? This movie only has two locations that aren't a Rebel or Imperial base; The Erso farm from the beginning of the movie and the streets of Jheda. The Erso farm is a bad example because the events that take place there only occur because Jyn's father is an ex-Imperial scientist (not exactly an everyday occurrence). The streets of Jheda are the only real chance to see civillians interacting with Imperials, but they don't really, at all. The fighting that takes place there was a result of Saw's troops too, so really the Rebels were the ones who were putting people in danger there. For all we know the Imperial presence on Jheda may have stabilized an unsafe region.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Darko posted:The score objectively sucked though. I didn't think it was great, but it was no worse than TFA's really. Old John Williams is about as good as Not John Williams. Regarding the characters, K2, Krennic and Chirrut were top tier, Jyn, Andor and Mads were mid-to-low tier and the rest were also there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
LanceKing2200 posted:What are you talking about here? This movie only has two locations that aren't a Rebel or Imperial base; The Erso farm from the beginning of the movie and the streets of Jheda. The Erso farm is a bad example because the events that take place there only occur because Jyn's father is an ex-Imperial scientist (not exactly an everyday occurrence). The streets of Jheda are the only real chance to see civillians interacting with Imperials, but they don't really, at all. The fighting that takes place there was a result of Saw's troops too, so really the Rebels were the ones who were putting people in danger there. For all we know the Imperial presence on Jheda may have stabilized an unsafe region. There were things on the streets showing they were constantly Nazi harrassing civilians. This wasn't in the other movies as any Stormtrooper action was related to them looking for specific people. It only touched on it, but still a step up to give a more oppressive feeling. This is stuff that gets more focused on in the cartoons and stuff, but I kind of pretend they dont exist when watching movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
LanceKing2200 posted:For all we know the Imperial presence on Jheda may have stabilized an unsafe region. Yep, I'm sure that right up until they nuked the region from orbit the Empire was a shining example of a benevolent dictatorship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:I didn't think it was great, but it was no worse than TFA's really. Old John Williams is about as good as Not John Williams.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:For all that I'm critical I will say that I do think Bodhi was handled well. He's given a small but complete arc and shows small human moments of heroism. Chirrut's is a little weaker because "I believe in the Force, and the Force is with me" would have more impact if he wasn't bullseyeing poo poo and beating up Stormtroopers while blind. There's no doubt that The Force is with him and so what should be a dramatic moment is "oh, he's doing the same poo poo he's done all film." My problem with Bodhi is, I don't know why he defected. He turned his back on the Empire at colossal risk, why? Because Galen told him to? If so, why/how does he have a relationship with Galen where he'll go on an extremely risky mission from which there is no return to his previous life on Galen's instructions? If so, wouldn't that come up more emphatically when Cassian is getting ready to snipe Galen? Or is he ideologically motivated, he has some reason to hate the Empire? I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Yep, I'm sure that right up until they nuked the region from orbit the Empire was a shining example of a benevolent dictatorship. I mean yes, obviously this is the Empire from Star Wars here, they aren't touching down to hand out candy or anything, but people are still living there perfectly fine. Edit: It would be different if we saw more of Saw and his group on this planet as the Imperials were arriving. The Empire parks a big ol' Star Destroyer above the town, and starts mining crystals with no regard for the people living there, to the point of murdering anyone who won't leave their home that's standing in the way of a dig site. Saw's group comes in, kicks some rear end and saves some people, or if they need him to be more brutal just starts blowing up Imperials with no regard to the citizens. But if something like this did take place before the story, then why are there still people living there at all? LanceKing2200 fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
yeah and people are living 'perfectly fine' in isis-controlled towns, what's your point
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:My problem with Bodhi is, I don't know why he defected. He turned his back on the Empire at colossal risk, why? Because Galen told him to? If so, why/how does he have a relationship with Galen where he'll go on an extremely risky mission from which there is no return to his previous life on Galen's instructions? If so, wouldn't that come up more emphatically when Cassian is getting ready to snipe Galen? Or is he ideologically motivated, he has some reason to hate the Empire? I don't know. Hey says that it was a chance at redemption at one point but you're right that is about all we get.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
LanceKing2200 posted:What are you talking about here? This movie only has two locations that aren't a Rebel or Imperial base; The Erso farm from the beginning of the movie and the streets of Jheda. The Erso farm is a bad example because the events that take place there only occur because Jyn's father is an ex-Imperial scientist (not exactly an everyday occurrence). The streets of Jheda are the only real chance to see civillians interacting with Imperials, but they don't really, at all. The fighting that takes place there was a result of Saw's troops too, so really the Rebels were the ones who were putting people in danger there. For all we know the Imperial presence on Jheda may have stabilized an unsafe region. I mean, from a canon perspective, sure this probably isn't normal for most "civilized" worlds, but that's not really the point. In the moment, you're seeing the Empire acting this way on a world and understanding the oppression that can exist under them, not thinking about all the places where it might not be happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Didn't Jedha have massive scary ships overhead creating shadows in all places at all times? That's dystopian and oppressive as gently caress without being in your face about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Remember those weird posts I made comparing Star Wars to Gundam a while back? Well I'm gonna keep digging that hole by comparing Rogue One to Gundam 0080. Thanks for this. 0080 is easily my favorite Gundam for its very pessimistic take on war and you've pointed out things I missed when I saw it. BlindSite posted:Firstly the whole plot involving Saw Gerrera felt loving pointless. His entire character seemed shoehorned in so they could write around it. Wouldn't it make more sense rather than having this dude stand in as an extremist to simply have Jyn already a member of the Rebellion working on Jedha to investigate wtf the empire is doing with these Crystals. You can already keep the Monk and his protector in the story if this is the case. A Deacon posted:I'm still trying to figure out what the point of Forest Whitaker's entire character was. As far as I can tell, Saw Gerrera was supposed to be a dark mirror of Darth Vader. Like Vader, he lost most of his human body and was replaced by machinery, symbolizing that he lost his humanity. The movie goes so far in comparing the two as to give him strained breathing as well. He was supposed to be a warning that war can make even the supposed good guys lose their humanity just as much as the bad guys. Unfortunately it seems that the movie cut out too much of his character development in the reshoots, so now you can say that he symbolizes films who have their character development hacked up and removed, replaced with cold unfeeling and inanimate approximations of his former humanity, straining to have a semblance of the breath of life in his portrayal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:03
|
|
