Star Trek Beyond is more entertaining than Rogue One.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Mr. Plinkett Talks About Rogue One
- Thread starter jett
- Start date
- Status
Hey each to their own, I didn't really like much of anything out of tfa, it felt like someone did a focus test and made a paint-by-numbers star war
I felt like it was okay that I only got a cursory look into these characters lives, and I did like them as other normal schmucks that live in the star war, instead of the Vader family tree. Considering the series is still going to focus on vader's spawn, and/or more prequels of fan favorite characters I was hella amused by the story of the "lots of people" in the "lots of people died to get these plans"
Idk, I also haven't really liked most the marvel movies, so clearly my opinion is in the minority 🤷*♂️ I liked the middle manager in a cape way more than snoke or the chrome stormtrooper or baron zemo or ultron
Mike didn't like Civil War? The hell?
Hey, don't talk smack about team four star!
I think Krennic was too flawed.
He's foiled by every character and nobody respects him. He gets shot in the opening scene, fails to notice people conspiring against him, Tarkin usurps his success, Vader chokes him, then he dies.
But he's just incompetent. And we don't even see that part. Krennic is pretty one dimensional. At least Kylo is more complex.
Well the arguement is that they are only there so that the movie would be shown in China only allows a certain amount of Western films to be shown. The gross positive is that the characters are closer to Tibetan culture.
Atom Heart Mother
Banned
Rogue One was a decent film, just had boring characters.
Back-In-Black
Banned
Nope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJvUTFVqwJQ
Like I said, he likes his schlock to be schlocky, not serious.
i think the criticism of rogue one is fairly on point. i agreed with them in the half in the bag overview of the film where they thought it could have been a more straightforward heist movie (which i thought it was going to be as well when i heard the initial concept). that's not to say i disliked rogue one either - i had a lot of fun with it, and i didn't find all of its characters boring (k2-so, krennic).
what i take issue with is their review of the force awakens is super off-point. the first two and a half hours of the review is arguing with prequel fans about why the prequels are still bad movies. it's an uninteresting retread and maybe they did it as a meta-commentary of the force awakens, but responding directly to a comments section makes me think it was dead serious. i didn't give a shit about ring theory because it had nothing to do with the force awakens. there was no leadup to it and it felt like it could have been included in a separate video.
then, instead of arguing the force awakens on its merits as a film, which admittedly does happen a little with how close they feel it is to a new hope (and the alternate fanboy plot he concocts is a fun little idea), i think the goes off the deep end when he starts whining about the main characters. it comes across as 'but why isn't hollywood making a white male character i can identify with?' when having rey and finn as main characters is providing a much-needed break from the original series and the prequels in terms of representation. the whole segment where he criticizes this and the lack of love in the force awakens came across as sorely tone-deaf to the point where it was off-putting and ruins the entire 'review' of the film for me.
WrenchNinja
Member
What does he say about Riz Ahmed?
Sho_Nuff82
Member
I think you're misconstruing flawed for inept
Rogue One is a safe, forgetable prequel that doesn't advance any of the characters - old or new - in its continuous universe.
So, imo, Point still holds
Definitely better than George Lucas's asian characters in the prequel.
Except it doesnt. Remember this was everyones assumption before the prequel.Rogue One is a safe, forgetable prequel that doesn't advance any of the characters - old or new - in its continuous universe.
So, imo, Point still holds
https://youtu.be/-nTk_lJqiIQ?t=06s
http://kotaku.com/why-many-in-china-hate-iron-man-3s-chinese-version-486840429
"Tony doesn't have to do this aloneChina can help." - An actual line in the Chinese version of Iron Man 3
Their TFA review was positive.
It was also complete shit. So basically the opposite of their prequel reviews.
bishopcruz
Member
I think one of the complaints I am getting tired of, and I see this from more than just RLM, is this almost disdain for action sequences. As if the movies would be better if there was practically no action at all, and that it adds no value to the film itself. I mean, it's not the be all end all, but great action sequences can add a lot to a film. It's totally OK to want to see some great explosions, and mechs, and spaceships blowing up. It's escapism, and it can be exciting and fun. It can't always save a bad movie (see Jurassic World) but in a film which has good characters, and an interesting storyline, like Rogue One, I just don't see the "it's all explosions" as a valid complaint.
Count Dookkake
Member
I'm not sure what either of these points have to do with mine as I don't recall making any comment as to the position or quality of the reviews.
I'd argue that Rogue One doesn't have good characters, and that's why I wasn't as invested in the action scenes. The scenes were good, but I had no decent stakes in them other than what was to come for Episode 4.
At least, in my opinion.
Insanity I tell ya, Civil War was awesome!
It's mines too. I could not get invested enough to care for anyone's death.
The problem is the trend in modern blockbusters to cut the plot and character development to shreds in favor of massive overblown action scenes. Rogue One was particularly guilty of this, with a giant space battle at the end starring a bunch of fucking nobodies while the main characters struggled to operate computer equipment.
ThePrequelsSuck
Banned
TFA sucked
Isaac Otherworld
Member
In the prequels, Anakin Skywalker is a character plagued with feelings of inadequecy, vindictiveness, jealousy, impusiveness, and is prone to fits of spiteful rage. One of the reasons he doesn't work is because aside from that last one, none of those are character traits of Darth Vader.
The other reason it doesn't work is because the prequels are poorly written, poorly acted, and poorly directed. Kylo Ren has most of the same character flaws as Prequel Anakin, but though good acting and writing and clever use of montage, managers to execute it in an enjoyable way all while Kylo still manages to be threatening and menacing. He's a good villian in his own right?
Does that clarify my position?
direct_quote
Member
I'd also agree with RLM half in the bag review of Rogue One where they talked about how small the Star Wars Universe feels, and I don't know if I'm very interested in seeing retreads of similar themes, plots, and side stories that don't need to be told. Hell does Han Solo really need an origins story movie (or whatever it is going to be)?
MajinSweet4
Member
As cynical as this might sound, I think that's what they are going for. If you make a new Star Wars movie every year that expands on the overall plot then you risk losing the general audience. We are most likely going to see a pattern of EP7>Filler Movie>EP8>Filler Movie repeat. And that's not to say a "filler movie" can't be good, but it's hard not to see it as a cheap way to cash in on the brand.
BlanketFort
Member
I enjoyed both TFA and Rogue One.
For what it's worth I disagreed and agreed with a lot of RLM in both of their retrospectives.
Enjoyable entertainment all around.
For what it's worth I disagreed and agreed with a lot of RLM in both of their retrospectives.
Enjoyable entertainment all around.
Discotheque
Banned
yeah, outside of the fantastic old trilogy aesthetic it was just a really dull theater experience. that darth vader scene was so dope but too little too late for me. donnie yen doing kung fu was nice as well but god damn were these characters boring, and I like a lot of the cast too, I don't think it was their fault.
force awakens was considerably better imo.
I think most fictional universes work like that, though. Sure Middle-Earth has expansive lore, but do you really want to see a new movie that's all about the dwarves? Ok maybe you do, but generally people want to see Gandalf and the hobbits again, cos that's what they know. So SW fans want to see the jedi, lightsabers, x-wings, Han solo etc
broncobuster
Banned
To a degree it was a problem with the expanded universe. But you still had games, comics, and books that explored other aspects of the universe. I hope one day they're confident enough to take two steps away from the OT.
I don't know how true this is. Sure, people want to see some of the series' distinctive stuff. Otherwise there's no point in having the new work be set in the same universe. You could make a movie about dwarves that had nothing to do with Middle-Earth instead - the value in having it be set in Middle-Earth is entirely in it doing something with stuff people are already interested in. But this leaves you a lot of options still, and I think Star Wars has proven that it can be much bigger than the OT. This is easy to see with games: Knights of the Old Republic is very disconnected from the OT and is very well-regarded, and various flight sims have nothing to do with Jedi or the OT characters. I know that the old EU books got pretty far from the sort of hero's journey thing the OT was doing and sometimes pretty far from the OT characters. There are lots of different things that people like about Star Wars, and you can reasonably tell a story or make a game about just one of them. So yeah, you need X-Wings or lightsabers or Han Solo because otherwise why bother calling it Star Wars, but there's a lot of room here.
And they'll get this on odd years like clockwork.
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
I find comment like these very odd. Like if I disagreed with a single one of their reviews that would somehow undermine any other review they've made.
As someone who has never been a fan of Star Wars (grew up a Trekkie), I've actually enjoyed these last two films a lot. They're very entertaining.
My tally with RLM would be: I'm totally in agreement of the prequel trilogy which boils down to not liking bad filmmaking. I'm not as enamoured with the original trilogy as them and I like the two new movies more than they seem to do. My take is that as I'm not as nostalgic as they.
You can't agree or disagree with everyone someone else does and thinks. If you do you're either brainwashed or not critical enough.
Grenouille
Member
How come we don't have a Middle-Earth CU yet? Can't wait for the Tom Bombadil solo film.
BarringGaffner
Member
The first 30 minutes of Rogue One are an absolute mess... fixing that first act would make that action have a LOT more weight.
I actually started to care about the characters by the end sequence somehow but during the first act I was just thinking 'my god the studio execs completely ruined this film'.
The Tolkien Estate got that shit on lock, and rightfully so after what WB did to The Hobbit.
Honestly, I hope we get a new take on 'The Hobbit' in a couple of years. It'd be interesting to see what a new studio and Director does with the short story.
The only thing that annoys me about the recent stuff RLM puts out, is hammering home the point that Disney own Lucasfilm, and seemingly bashing the films over the head with that fact as if it's a negative.
The realty is, Disney's ownership gives the studios it owns the license to do what they want, within reason, on a scale they maybe wouldn't have been able to previously. See Marvel particularly.
Rogue One, Young Han Solo etc, are all birthed from inside Lucasfilm, Kennedy and by proxy Lucas and his lasting legacy on the franchise.
The fact that Disney now owns Lucasfilm should be seen, IMO, as a tremendous positive, given how they seem to treat all the studios and properties they own. Rogue One's ending should be enough to persuade any doubters that's Disney aren't interested in meddling too much with what each respective studio wants to do with its own franchises.
The rest of the criticisms are valid, but some of it is pretty subjective. I enjoyed the characters, and whilst most, if not all, were undercooked (Saw especially) and seemingly harmed by the editing and reshoots, I feel they did a good enough job of giving us just enough to understand who they were and why they were doing what they were doing.
In my head, I'd always imagined the group that stole the plans were nothing more than spies/commandos for the Alliance. Those spies and commandos now have names and I have an understanding of who they were. Was it handled perfectly? Of course not, but it served the film well enough, IMO.
The story was always pretty straightforward, and whatever they attempted to flesh it out with has seemingly been lost somewhere on the editing room floor. Wasn't there meant to be an entire subplot regarding Kyber crystal poisoning? Probably wasn't adding anything to the overall plot, but it would have been cool to have fully developed ideas that help add to the franchise and lore. The remnants are there, along with a few other bits and pieces, that leave just enough for some things to feel disjointed. That's particularly obvious when you look at how much of the trailer footage contradicts what was actually left in. In terms of what I was expecting though, it ticked the box...just.
I can't subjectively step back away from Rogue One and view it as a standalone film. Yes, I can throughly understand why it would seem confusing to anyone viewing a Star Wars film for the first time...but was that ever the intended audience? Whether you first saw a Star Wars film in 1977 or 2015, both TFA and ANH showed us enough to understand the absolute basics of Rogue One and its in-universe context. It's meant to be telling us about a story we already know existed.
Part of the reason TFA was the way it was, and what I've argued from the beginning, is it needed to introduced the saga to three different sets of fans (77, 99 and 2015), for very different reasons. TFA was likely an entire generations first exposure to Star Wars, and should have gifted them with the basic knowledge needed to navigate Rogue One's story.
I can't escape the criticism that Rogue One doesn't work as someone's first Star Wars film....ish, but it almost has to presume the audience is aware of certain things to not get bogged down trying to explain things again. The only real aspect of what we got I'd actively change, is I'd reinforce the idea that actually doing something with the plans is for another time (hey kids, now go watch ANH), but the mission to steal the plans is just as important in the continuation and unification of a rebellion wavering in their conviction. A lot of that was in there, with the scenes on Yavin and the film's last line, but I'd possibly look at reinforcing it a bit.
You know what I think is the biggest reason Plinkett is getting a lot of backlash though? People wanted to hate the Prequels....not many of us want to hate where the franchise is going.
The realty is, Disney's ownership gives the studios it owns the license to do what they want, within reason, on a scale they maybe wouldn't have been able to previously. See Marvel particularly.
Rogue One, Young Han Solo etc, are all birthed from inside Lucasfilm, Kennedy and by proxy Lucas and his lasting legacy on the franchise.
The fact that Disney now owns Lucasfilm should be seen, IMO, as a tremendous positive, given how they seem to treat all the studios and properties they own. Rogue One's ending should be enough to persuade any doubters that's Disney aren't interested in meddling too much with what each respective studio wants to do with its own franchises.
The rest of the criticisms are valid, but some of it is pretty subjective. I enjoyed the characters, and whilst most, if not all, were undercooked (Saw especially) and seemingly harmed by the editing and reshoots, I feel they did a good enough job of giving us just enough to understand who they were and why they were doing what they were doing.
In my head, I'd always imagined the group that stole the plans were nothing more than spies/commandos for the Alliance. Those spies and commandos now have names and I have an understanding of who they were. Was it handled perfectly? Of course not, but it served the film well enough, IMO.
The story was always pretty straightforward, and whatever they attempted to flesh it out with has seemingly been lost somewhere on the editing room floor. Wasn't there meant to be an entire subplot regarding Kyber crystal poisoning? Probably wasn't adding anything to the overall plot, but it would have been cool to have fully developed ideas that help add to the franchise and lore. The remnants are there, along with a few other bits and pieces, that leave just enough for some things to feel disjointed. That's particularly obvious when you look at how much of the trailer footage contradicts what was actually left in. In terms of what I was expecting though, it ticked the box...just.
I can't subjectively step back away from Rogue One and view it as a standalone film. Yes, I can throughly understand why it would seem confusing to anyone viewing a Star Wars film for the first time...but was that ever the intended audience? Whether you first saw a Star Wars film in 1977 or 2015, both TFA and ANH showed us enough to understand the absolute basics of Rogue One and its in-universe context. It's meant to be telling us about a story we already know existed.
Part of the reason TFA was the way it was, and what I've argued from the beginning, is it needed to introduced the saga to three different sets of fans (77, 99 and 2015), for very different reasons. TFA was likely an entire generations first exposure to Star Wars, and should have gifted them with the basic knowledge needed to navigate Rogue One's story.
I can't escape the criticism that Rogue One doesn't work as someone's first Star Wars film....ish, but it almost has to presume the audience is aware of certain things to not get bogged down trying to explain things again. The only real aspect of what we got I'd actively change, is I'd reinforce the idea that actually doing something with the plans is for another time (hey kids, now go watch ANH), but the mission to steal the plans is just as important in the continuation and unification of a rebellion wavering in their conviction. A lot of that was in there, with the scenes on Yavin and the film's last line, but I'd possibly look at reinforcing it a bit.
You know what I think is the biggest reason Plinkett is getting a lot of backlash though? People wanted to hate the Prequels....not many of us want to hate where the franchise is going.
Well, wonder he doesn't like the modern humor in the new SW
Lostconfused
Member
How meta.
Ordinaryundone
Member
You joke, but if The Hobbit hadn't lost its steam by the end we probably would have have one announced by now with Treebeard: Origns and The Simarillion: A Lord of the Rings Story following behind.
i really do not understand this.
Why would Vader have those feelings bar the rage? Anakin had these feels due to his environment & place among the Jedi, jedi rules, council mistrust, people holding him back etc etc... Vader is pretty much king shit in OT, so why would he be feeling inadequate, jealous, etc...?
- Status