-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is up on US Netflix
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
Fancy Clown
Member
The Aliens crew has consistant and charismatic characterization and are constantly being thrown in situations designed for them to play off each other, and have their real personalities reveal under stress (Hudson's got a big mouth but he cracks under pressure, Ripley is cool and commanding etc). The characters in Rogue One don't do that. Like the main character goes from angsty and apolitical to all of a sudden passionately leading the band of rebels but that feels like a totally inorganic shift, and while some of the crew have a schtick like Donnie Yen and the snarky robot, they don't all bounce off each other that often (in fact the crew is frequently split up from each other during the big action sequences) and you're left with a lot of flatly played exposition by characters who are rough sketches of personality that remain static no matter what the situation is. They're just not fun to watch.
Funny enough my most recent rewatch made me think Menace might be the best of the prequel trilogy
Thank you for the explanation!
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I think they do, it's just not done as well. Which is why I qualified my comparison to ALIENS for the purposes of calling out people's leaning on "development" as a valid criticism (which it is, or can be) worthy of writing off their "inability" to care for the people onscreen.
I'm not trying to say "Rogue One is as good as Aliens" at all. That's not the point of that, and if it were, your pointing out why it falls short (which is accurate/insightful) would kill that line of argument dead like RAID. It's to point out that even in some of the best examples of ensemble "men on a mission" shit in cinema, the "development" being held up as a measuring stick isn't all that developed, either.
So long as people aren't trying to apply lead character status to every member of the ensemble as their bar for "okay- you're developed enough now for me to allow myself to like you and not feel stupid for it."
I'm not trying to handwave the film's faults, I'm just saying I don't think the faults are deep enough, or numerous enough, to seriously knock the legs out from under its successes, of which there are quite a bit.
np
Hell, I would say Tarkin is the main villain of ANH. Vader is basically a muscle character for Tarkin in that movie.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Tarkin is the main villain of Star Wars, yeah. Vader's a henchman in that movie.
Tarkin is Goldfinger. Vader is Oddjob.
Tarkin is Goldfinger. Vader is Oddjob.
That's a fair statement to make, especially with Cushing still being a well known actor at that point and easily the second-most recognizable face in the film apart from Alec Guiness. But considering the face of the villains from that point forward, it's hard not to give it to Vader with how important he is to the entire story, as well as the then "one and done" status of Tarkin as a character.
Fancy Clown
Member
Fair enough. I think people who say "the characters aren't developed enough" are probably trying to articulate my point that I don't think the ensemble is utilized particularly well in order to create strife and characterize one another by their interactions and end up feeling kinda blank. For me unfortunately it was enough to tank my enjoyment of the film, similarl to Godzilla. Edwards is great at capturing scale, but I feel like the treats his characters primarily as stoic expository vehicles or theme explainers rather than organic personalities that exist to build upon characterization in addition to moving the plot. I think comparing it to Force Awakens is a great way to show how much of a better handle the latter has on its ensemble cast and how to utilize it to create (more) compelling character drama.
Turin Turambar
Member
It is.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Wow, so much wrong in one list. PM better than FA and ESB?! Also R1. Such an empty Star Wars movie. All flash, no substance.
Geno Breaker
Banned
Nah, there's a ton of love and hardwork put into that one. The theme of hope shines through despite some weak attempts at characterization.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Maybe, but I also feel that's probably being a little free with the credit, and/or providing some of those people putting forward not-well-thought-out-arguments a convenient out, i.e. "Oh, what they MEANT to say was probably this other, thoughtful thing, instead of just coughing up the word "development!" and folding their arms"
But going down that path isn't only just a little unfair on my part (and it is) it's also getting away from discussing the movie itself.
I don't disagree, but for me, the comparison to Godzilla is what elevates the film and its characterizations, for me, because I look at what he did(n't do) on Godzilla, how much waste he laid in the VFX sequences and how much he WASTED his cast running into and out of them, and Rogue One is a giant leap beyond that. And I don't wanna put all that success on him, either - the actors (and probably Tony Gilroy in reshoots/post) brought a lot on their own, and the lighter tone of the material helped there as well.
It falls short of Force Awakens on those levels, absolutely, but Force Awakens isn't as big an ensemble, and is definitely rooting itself in that mythological shit in a way Rogue One doesn't want to. So not only is Abrams/Kasdan better at what they're trying to do, what they're trying to do lends itself a lot more easily to the sort of thing I feel people crying "development" are wanting out of almost every character they're introduced to.
And to be real clear: Aside from ESB and maybe TFA: Pretty much every other Star Wars movie is fairly thin on meaning/depth. Even their depth is superficial. Which is fine, so long as they execute it well
dealer-
Member
Yep that's pretty much all he's good at imo. He's in his element with landscapes and scenery but anything to do with humans/characters falls flat. I read in an interview that he just lets actors do what they feel is right, so he doesn't like blocking basically or composing a scene beforehand. Couple that with the shallow characterisation and it's easy to see why it falls short of the Force Awakens, which does all these things better.
modernmalady
Member
I enjoyed Rogue One more than Force Awakens, but I recognize it's messiness.
I feel like I liked it more 'cause I don't really have an interest in the Jedi or their whole deal. It was such a breath of fresh air to see these "regular" rebels get down in dirty.
I feel like I liked it more 'cause I don't really have an interest in the Jedi or their whole deal. It was such a breath of fresh air to see these "regular" rebels get down in dirty.
So much wrong in one post. FA was hollow and full of ADD and least Star Wars movie of them all.
Worst first post
Bobby Roberts
Banned
which is it
Fancy Clown
Member
That makes a hell of a lot of sense considering you can probably count on one hand the amount of shots that have more than 2 of the ensemble in the frame together or isn't over the shoulder. I don't know if it's due to scheduling in the reshoots but often it doesn't even feel like characters shot their scenes together and are actually sharing a space and interacting with each other. Most notably I think during Forest's Darth Struggle scenes.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Yeah, like zuf's pointing out, a lot of why Edwards fell behind and got himself in trouble in the edit (on both Godzilla and Rogue One) is apparently due to the fact he just sorta... shoots shit. He'll pick up a camera and just wave it around as the mood strikes him.
Which has to be supremely frustrating for producers/editors who then have to try and make sense of all this shit. It probably also explains why the blandest takes are the ones that make it into the final edit in Godzilla (and Monsters, which is fucking awful), because at least those will cut together.
Which has to be supremely frustrating for producers/editors who then have to try and make sense of all this shit. It probably also explains why the blandest takes are the ones that make it into the final edit in Godzilla (and Monsters, which is fucking awful), because at least those will cut together.
Fancy Clown
Member
I don't think FA having a smaller ensemble gives it too much of a leg up tbh because it's really not a question of time needed to give the characters...well, character. Seven Samurai may be nearly 4 hours long but it only needed one scene to firmly establish who each of the characters are, and then just throw em against each other the rest of the movie instead of pulling them apart and making them drone on about plot details. The details of the plan was always at the forefront of the movie and the characters were their to service that first and foremost, while the best ensemble heist movies simply use that as an exercuse to have these different personality types chafe against one another to create conflict or growth. This is exemplified with the ending of Rogue one, where the entire drama of the last scenes we see are centered around an inanimate object (and goofily restating the theme that's been well hammered) rather than choosing to close on a character beat.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I disagree. Force Awakens having a smaller ensemble plus having better writers and a better director definitely gives it a leg up. I don't think that's really arguable. Those are all positives in Force Awakens' favor, and easily spottable ones. I don't think you need to draw a comparison to Seven Samurai in order to make that clear.
Again: I'm not saying Rogue One stands among the all-time classics in terms of ensemble features. It doesn't deserve that. But there's a lot of space between "no development at all" and Kurosawa. And I feel Rogue One rests somewhere in that space, on the side of the line where it's overall a net positive.
Fancy Clown
Member
I was responding strictly to your point about character count being a measure of quality or advantage (which I don't think is too much smaller in Rogue One than TFA anyway all things considered, especially since really only Jyn gets a lot of screentime). Of course TFA having better writers and directed resulted in a better movie, I'm saying that the amount of characters in it didn't have anything to do with the amount of character the characters have, hence my point that other ensemble movies don't have the same issue with characterization that Rogue does and can do it in an economical fashion. If Seven Samurai is a bad example, then look at a lot of great noir movies like Rififi and The Killing which make compelling character drama the forefront of their heist plots and strongly sketch their characters and play them off each other in under 90 minutes.
To be clear, I'm using these great movies not as a means to say if Rogue One isn't as good as a certifiable classic then it's shit, but because they are clear illustrations of what can be accomplished with ensemble character based storytelling. There are certainly movies that do it even worse than Rogue One, but for me it's not in the "eh good enough" range either.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I know you pointed out that Seven Samurai didn't need its four hours to develop (that word!!) its ensemble, but that's also kind of the point I was trying to make with my ALIENS comparison in the first place: "Development" isn't that much of a dealbreaker when it comes to ensemble films because most of the time you're just never going to develop all those people past a certain—typically superficial—point, even in the best examples.
My point isn't trying to argue that Rogue One does a great job of it, so constantly showing how it falls short compared to ensemble pictures that DO (The Killing is another great example!) is just spinning wheels: We're both in agreement on that point. Where we differ is that a) I don't think the full development of the larger ensemble is as important, much less necessary, and b) I don't think Rogue One did it poorly.
I think the characterization is fine. Some of it is better than others. the whole is good enough to get the movie where it wants to be, emotionally, in that last half hour. I'm not saying it couldn't have done it better.
Fancy Clown
Member
Haha I've been on mobile so maybe I'm not making as much sense as I'd like to, but I'll try to clarify. We obviously differ about the quality of the movie but I'm not saying the characters don't work because they aren't constantly getting new information and complicating and changing the characters (being developed lol), but where I think Rogue fumbles is in the basics of setting up a bunch of clearly distinct personalities and then driving the actual conflict and stakes through the friction those character types present (otherwise why else build a story around an ensemble?). The snarky robot and Donnie Yen are really the only two characters that are clearly defined personalities with distinct voices (like what are even basic personality traits of Riz Ahmed's character? Or what makes Donnie Yen's friend memorable besides being Donnie Yen's character's friend?). Most of the team members simply function in expository moments or to move the plot forward. It also constantly undermines its characters. Jyn resolves her character struggle in the middle of the movie and becomes an efficient leader practically at the flip of a switch, the comedic reshoots add characters cracking jokes but don't add any reactions, and we rarely even get to see the whole team actually interact together and have their personalities defined by those interactions. Even the all deaths come solely from outside overwhelming odds that the plot throws at them rather than any specific character flaws or quirks that trip them up in some way.
Rogue One puts most of the dramatic weight behind the macguffin itself, which is why it doesn't emotionally resonate with a lot of folks. You're right they don't need to be super developed characters, but the focus of the narrative should still be about the group of characters and how they function (or not function) together. Most good movies are about something other than their plots, and besides the frequently said but rarely expressed stuff about hope Rogue One felt to me like it was a lot more interested in showing how a group would steal the Death Star plans rather than what that says about their characters.
TFA
Empire
New Hope/Rogue One
Jedi
Sith
Phantom
Clones
New Hope and Rogue One kinda go back and forth, I'd probably need to watch them back to back to really know which I like more.
Blasphemy. ROTJ takes that cake for sure (albeit still being a great movie)
Wolfe
Member
Finally watched this today due to it being available on netflix, and I gotta say, I fucking loved it.
Don't really get the complaints I keep reading about it in this thread. Movie felt fresh, all of the characters were fleshed out enough for me to enjoy and form emotional attachments to, pacing felt good and the callbacks or nods to previous films were not overdone or too in your face to me.
Also thought Vader would be in the end for like 15 minutes based on what I read here but it felt like he was only on screen for 5 if that (I'm sure it was likely more but my point was it felt brief). Which honestly was fine and felt good to me, reading that ROTS thread recently had left a poor image of "vader" in my head so it was nice hearing the cool collected Vader I'm used to from the original trilogy.
Granted I'm still riding high off the initial viewing, but I'm prolly going to rewatch this weekend to get a better feel of it.
My only complaint so far is CG Leia, she looked all kinds of funky, at least they had Tarkin in darkness most the time so it wasn't so bad with him.
And cheesy or not I definitely got hit with the feels when Bail Organa says "I trust her with my life" as I immediately thought back to A New Hope.
In the end I gladly place this movie with the OT and TFA as "star wars movies I really enjoy", well above the prequels even though I still like those too, but more because of the star wars name and less because of their merits as films.
Don't really get the complaints I keep reading about it in this thread. Movie felt fresh, all of the characters were fleshed out enough for me to enjoy and form emotional attachments to, pacing felt good and the callbacks or nods to previous films were not overdone or too in your face to me.
Also thought Vader would be in the end for like 15 minutes based on what I read here but it felt like he was only on screen for 5 if that (I'm sure it was likely more but my point was it felt brief). Which honestly was fine and felt good to me, reading that ROTS thread recently had left a poor image of "vader" in my head so it was nice hearing the cool collected Vader I'm used to from the original trilogy.
Granted I'm still riding high off the initial viewing, but I'm prolly going to rewatch this weekend to get a better feel of it.
My only complaint so far is CG Leia, she looked all kinds of funky, at least they had Tarkin in darkness most the time so it wasn't so bad with him.
And cheesy or not I definitely got hit with the feels when Bail Organa says "I trust her with my life" as I immediately thought back to A New Hope.
In the end I gladly place this movie with the OT and TFA as "star wars movies I really enjoy", well above the prequels even though I still like those too, but more because of the star wars name and less because of their merits as films.
mugurumakensei
Member
Rewatching it reconfirmed that Rogue One is tiers above The Force Awakens.
SuperStiltzkin
Member
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Suicide missions to recover plans is a new thing?
And a lot of movies resemble other things, that doesn't mean they aren't good. Life is just an Alien ripoff, but a very good one.
NipplesAndToes23
Member
I've never seen a Star Wars movie. Would I be okay?
I mean 60% of Rogue One is built on fan service and "HEY LOOK AT THIS THING FROM ANH" or "LOOK AT THIS, STAR WARS"
So probably not
mugurumakensei
Member
Eh, I disagree. The Force Awakens would be an example of being built on fan service and nostalgia.
Rogue One is a story that ties into the events of A New Hope, but it primarily takes place on a different planet and focuses on a set of people who aren't Jedi.
theCalamity
Member
I didn't like this movie. It's bad, but it's bad in an interesting way. I'm going to watch it again today.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
They both are. C-3PO and R2D2 rocking up was the most egregious example. Also..."hope"...
*insert dopey CGI face*
Had no interest in seeing it before but gave it a shot. The movie jumps around way to much in the first act. First your on this planet, then jump to another random planet. Then another etc. the direction didn't seem very good
The characters also felt hollow. Jyn was just, there most of the time. Forrest Whitaker did nothing really.
The story was solid just everything else about the movie didn't work.
The characters also felt hollow. Jyn was just, there most of the time. Forrest Whitaker did nothing really.
The story was solid just everything else about the movie didn't work.
Spectral Glider
Member
Yes, you don't have to know anything about the series to understand it, though it's better if you already have.