I agree.
It had a better execution of it's tone and themes. Much better world building (ironically, for a film that actually must be strung to ANH, and even the PT, far more than TFA had to). I think it also executed much better being a side story (which is much better suited to being something different than the mainline films) than TFA did at being a mainline film paying tribute to the past while trying to add something new.
Even the approach of paying tribute to the past felt better in RO than TFA in that many new character like BB-8 is mostly R2 in slightly different form, Maz is a not-Yoda-not-Jedi that owns a Cantina, and Snoke is not-Sheev-not-Sith that still likes creepy holograms. Even if you prefer these character to their obvious influences, we get almost nothing in the way of development in the film that sets them apart, besides the potential for them to be different in the future. On the other hand, Rogue One set out to make a C3PO type character, but everything about the character is different from him; he can fight, he is as resourceful as R2, his personality is very different and manages to be a comic relief without being pandering or goofy (which is the go-to comic tone TFA taps on for every character that is humorous), and his design is so different from previous main characters while also having a clear influence from past character designers which makes the character both memorable and feel like it actually fits in this universe from what we've seen established.
That bring me to how both films handled old characters. Tarkin was a nice addition with a sizable and logical inclusion, despite how some may feel able the CG. Leia was similarly a good character to end the film on to tie it to ANH. Smaller characters felt like they fit in their inclusions and added to the credibility of this story about the rebels. Vader's final scene was great but that leads me to the main "misses", which I think Vader's scene on Mustafar felt poor and mainly unnecessary. Also Ponda Boba and Dr. Evazan felt unnecessary but forgivable for how brief it was. With TFA, I can go on and on about how underutilized to poorly handled Leia and Han were, especially with how involved they were will the plot. Their characterization felt poor, especially in their attempt (or lack their of) to fill in the audience on what had happened to their beloved characters in the last 30 years or even giving good justification for doing what they are doing. Plus, the death of Han, while the story beat itself wasn't so terrible, it didn't feel earned. The interaction between Han and Ben didn't do much to really show anything unique about their (obviously strained) relationship, how it became what it was, why Ben would be willing to go as far as to kill his own father, it was an insulting way to invoke an old character to give more credibility to a new one. They should have paid more attention to Ben's story and his relationship with his parents, if they wanted Ben to be as significant as he is. Even the minor interaction between Leia and Han felt like a missed opportunity and poor knowing that Han would have his send off only minutes after reuniting them. Then even the minor point of handling Chewie hardly made Chewie feel like a character and more like a prop. Just because Chewie doesn't have any lines doesn't mean he has no personality, we just get to see it through Han in the OT. Here, Chewie doesn't really even have that rapport with Han and Leia hugging Rey after Han dies while ignoring Chewie is a really poor oversight.
In regards to the world building, the First Order troopers barely add anything new. Their design weighs very heavy on the original Storm Trooper design, so much so that at a quick glance, they appear to be the exact same. Even the internet seemed to give more personality to the "Tr8-tor" trooper that fought Finn than J.J. Abram cared to. Why does this random trooper remember Finn? Why does he have a weapon that can combat a lightsaber which is likely an ultra rare Jedi weapon for the last ~50 years?! Rogue One has the Shore Troopers and Death Troopers, both visually unique and with a unique purpose.
I could get into what I liked about both films, but I preferred the positives in Rogue One more for what it was trying to do. In that regard, they are different films, with different goals, so I see why people have very different opinions on that basis.
I see a lot of people criticizing Rogue One's characters but not only was this a ensemble film (which always tend to lean more on archetypes than characterization) but it didn't have the same benefit of leaning on old characters as well as new characters who we already know will be sticking around in sequels, meaning people give them the benefit of the doubt going forward since they can always be developed later. In fact, most of the character development in Star Wars for any character has happened over the course of several films, if it happens at all. If you criticize Rogue One for a lack of characterization, then you need to look at TFA or any other film that introduces a character and the amount of development that character gets in the duration of that single film and make a fair comparison. TFA also leans heavily on the mystery of it's characters in the absence of actual characterization. Maybe J.J. Abrams has a good payoff in mind for several of these characters, but the potential of good characterization =/= characterization. Even the development of characters we already know like Leia and Han felt poor and they not only had a great reason to develop the characters (with the time jump and their integration to the plot and main characters), they had all the OT to use as a jumping off point. I would argue that the point of Rogue One was more about world building and a discrete story than a character probe, but that's my own personal take. Even when you get character building moments of Jyn, Saw, Cassian, or Chirrut and Baze, you get a better look into what that character represents in their place in the universe and their relation to the Rebels or the Empire. Even Bodhi's journey tells us a little more of what it means to be a defector from the Empire than Finn's defection does, he's treated as an enemy by almost everyone who meet him and has to earn their trust, to the point where he is even tortured, while everyone just believes Finn is sick of their shit. Finn is just a prime example of how poorly the characters are developed in TFA when they actually get development; he is raised as a Stormtrooper but has a sudden change of heart on the actual battlefield and barely seems to have combat experience/training (yet he knows how to shoot Tie cannons well) then he works in sanitation but knows enough about the weakness of the entire Starkiller base that his knowledge is able to help bring it down? yeahok.gif At least with Bodhi, his expertise is with his role as a pilot and what a pilot would be exposed to. Even K2SO as a former Imperial droid that has been memory wiped and reprogrammed works as a character who makes for a good spy with his skillset and appearance, even if his memory makes it so he's bumbling around when he has to actually talk to Stormtroopers and play the part. It's even in the subtle way he's walks compared to other Imperial droids. That's great characterization that works.
I think over time, Rogue One will be looked back with even more favor of what it accomplished and TFA just won't. As a quote unquote Star Wars film, it certainly will rank among the top of the mainline trilogy, but taking them on their own merits, Rogue One is bolder, even though neither can quite be removed from the context of the Star Wars franchise to truly view them in a bubble. Dealing with Jedis and the Skywalker saga will always make some people hold TFA in higher esteem, but Rogue One deserves the credit more, imo.
