I mean, how much "development" do we really need in a lot of these cases, though?
Some of this criticism sounds like buzzword slapjack.
How "developed" were Hicks, Hudson, and Vazquez? Yunno? How "developed" were Telly Savalas and Jim Brown? I'm not saying the Rogue One crew are on those levels at all, but for the purposes of comparison, are we maybe overinflating the importance/meaning of "development" for the sake of it?
Clones was actually at the bottom of my list for a very long time. It wasn't until my most recent rewatch, this past December, that I decided I like it slightly more than Menace. So I can definitely see where folks are coming from on that front.
Tarkin is effectively the second main villain in ANH, and even then, Vader does comply with his orders when they're given. In the overall canon, he's the father of the entire Death Star concept and is one of the highest ranking officers in all of the Empire. He is, putting mildly, kind of a big deal.
As Bobby speculated, it was likely a situation where they wanted to break new ground for CG human rendering and, well, impressions were mixed, to say the least.
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.
thanks bro
Tarkin is effectively the second main villain in ANH, and even then, Vader does comply with his orders when they're given. In the overall canon, he's the father of the entire Death Star concept and is one of the highest ranking officers in all of the Empire. He is, putting mildly, kind of a big deal.
As Bobby speculated, it was likely a situation where they wanted to break new ground for CG human rendering and, well, impressions were mixed, to say the least.
Hell, I would say Tarkin is the main villain of ANH. Vader is basically a muscle character for Tarkin in that movie.
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.
*Shrug*
I still think A New Hope is the weakest of the original trilogy
I think I'd rank them something like this...
Hope
Rogue
Return (still my favorite)
Phantom
Empire
Awakens
Revenge
Clones
Also R1. Such an empty Star Wars movie. All flash, no substance.
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.
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.
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.
Worst first post
FA was hollow and full of ADD
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.
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
I don't think FA having a smaller ensemble gives it too much of a leg up tbh
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.
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.
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 certaintypically superficialpoint, 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.
I think I'd rank them something like this...
Hope
Rogue
Return (still my favorite)
Phantom
Empire
Awakens
Revenge
Clones
*Shrug*
I still think A New Hope is the weakest of the original trilogy
Watched most of it on a flight, realized it was a blatant Halo reach ripoff and stopped watching.
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
Ugh, Rogue One is amazing and is the best Star Wars movie. Can't believe so many did not like like it, and I guess it is mostly becauseit did not have a nice happy fucking ending like every other movie.
Eh, I disagree. The Force Awakens would be an example of being built on fan service and nostalgia.
Or maybe because it's a total bore of a movie where a bunch of characters nobody asked for, or cares about, dies. All of it sloppily written just to explain a plot hole of a much older and better film.Ugh, Rogue One is amazing and is the best Star Wars movie. Can't believe so many did not like like it, and I guess it is mostly becauseit did not have a nice happy fucking ending like every other movie.
I've never seen a Star Wars movie. Would I be okay?