StarDestroyer.Net BBS

New TV spot on Facebook. We've got a line of dialogue for Blonde Mustache Guy, and he doesn't sound like Biggs at all either.

Here is something amusing, Gareth Edwards actually stole the Death Star plans from the set.

Rogue 9 wrote:New TV spot on Facebook. We've got a line of dialogue for Blonde Mustache Guy, and he doesn't sound like Biggs at all either.

After hearing his voice I can confirm it is Daniels and according to IMDB and my limited Google-fu powers he is not playing Biggs. Nice touch of continuity though, giving him a late 70s/early 80s cocaine mustache that Tom Selleck would be proud of.

Adam Reynolds wrote:Here is something amusing, Gareth Edwards actually stole the Death Star plans from the set.

Source?


I currently have tickets to a Wednesday evening showing, hopefully that's before the Kiwi's get to see the movie and I can spoil it for all of you.

Ace Pace wrote:

Adam Reynolds wrote:Here is something amusing, Gareth Edwards actually stole the Death Star plans from the set.

Source?


I currently have tickets to a Wednesday evening showing, hopefully that's before the Kiwi's get to see the movie and I can spoil it for all of you.

Probably won't work if you are not in the US, but here it is:

Crazedwraith wrote:

Galvatron wrote:Irregardless, I wonder how many loosers and morans will continue to misspell the word "rogue" after seeing this movie.

Why?

RougeIce is probably overjoyed by this. Or was it Rouge 9?

It was Corran.

Phantasee wrote:

Crazedwraith wrote:

Galvatron wrote:Irregardless, I wonder how many loosers and morans will continue to misspell the word "rogue" after seeing this movie.

Why?

RougeIce is probably overjoyed by this. Or was it Rouge 9?

I gave up on that a long time ago...

...in a galaxy far, far away...

(not sorry)

The RT rating for Rogue One is 78% so far, which is just one point below Ep III.

I see it sitting at 80%

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rogue_ ... wars_story

It has my money either way.

Several reviews I have seen compared this favorably to the OT, with several saying that it was just behind ESB in quality. Though it bizarrely is already down into the 7s on IMDB for some reason, which usually takes a while. Most movies start high and work their way down. It is odd that this one is already so low.

I have no doubt it will be polarizing among fans, especially the ones who get so defensive about the prequels. Every time a new Star Wars movie gets made that shows us what could have been, many fans will vent spleen at it just like they did with TFA.

As someone who generally likes the prequels overall, I really don't understand this. Rogue One should be judged on its own merits rather than compared to what already exists.

One thing Rogue One almost certainly does better than the prequels is that it is about a cast of characters that we have never heard of, as opposed to one that we already know the fates of. Whether or not the cast survives is a major question going into the movie, as opposed to the prequels in which we knew Obi-Wan and Anakin would survive whatever threats they faced. That was partially why Ahsoka was often more interesting in Clone Wars, because we did not actually know her fate.

We'll see how many or if any survive. I really wonder who if anyone survives at this point. If I was going to bet on anyone, it would be Jyn or Cassian, but it would generally make sense that they would be involved in the later Rebellion otherwise if they do.

Something I was thinking about with Vader's appearance in the season two premiere of Rebels is that he largely destroys most of what they fought for even though he doesn't kill or even seriously injure any of the characters. I wonder if this will be the other way around, in which they all die rather than risking failure. I'll see in 55 hours.

Adam Reynolds wrote:As someone who generally likes the prequels overall, I really don't understand this. Rogue One should be judged on its own merits rather than compared to what already exists.

Like it or not, this movie is part of a franchise and every part of that franchise is always going to judged against every other part of it. The fact that some parts are already so controversial just adds fuel to the fire.

Adam Reynolds wrote:Something I was thinking about with Vader's appearance in the season two premiere of Rebels is that he largely destroys most of what they fought for even though he doesn't kill or even seriously injure any of the characters. I wonder if this will be the other way around, in which they all die rather than risking failure. I'll see in 55 hours.

I hope Vader kills them all, but just barely fails to prevent them from completing their mission. It would explain why he seemed to be in such a foul mood at the beginning of ANH.

Actually one group I have a feeling doesn't like it is diehard fans of the old EU, in which there were literally a half dozen missions to steal the Death Star plans at different points that all suceeded. The games Dark Forces, Battlefront 2, Empire at War, and Lethal Alliance all featured plots, as did the Han Solo trilogy, and another short story involving Garm Bel Ibis. It really was absurd.

The same thing happened with the shuttle Tyderium, in which both the games Rogue Leader and X-wing Alliance similarly featured plots in which the shuttle was stolen one, lost, and then stolen again.

Galvatron wrote:I hope Vader kills them all, but just barely fails to prevent them from completing their mission. It would explain why he seemed to be in such a foul mood at the beginning of ANH.

At this point, I suspect the one he was referring to in his comment "There will be no one to stop us this time" is Krennic, who got in his way too often for Vader to be effective. Vader comes in at the end and is just short of suceeding in stopping the mission, in which a rather large number of Rebels are lost.

It also makes sense that this is why Leia was headed to Tatooine, as Bail recognized that the only one who could deal with Vader was Obi-Wan, who could then train Luke and Leia.

Possibly. Krennic didn't strike me as the typical bumbling Imperial in the novel I just read though. He was cunning, savvy and manipulative in a way that's usually reserved for characters like Thrawn.

As for fans of the old EU, I can't to see how they react to Zahn's upcoming novel that reboots Thrawn's origin.

Adam Reynolds wrote:Several reviews I have seen compared this favorably to the OT, with several saying that it was just behind ESB in quality. Though it bizarrely is already down into the 7s on IMDB for some reason, which usually takes a while. Most movies start high and work their way down. It is odd that this one is already so low.

Most of those people saying that tends to be fans who saw it at the premiere. Premiere reviews are extremely unreliable because everyone is way too excited about the movie that they tend to be far more forgiving than the average audience.

Adam Reynolds wrote:We'll see how many or if any survive. I really wonder who if anyone survives at this point. If I was going to bet on anyone, it would be Jyn or Cassian, but it would generally make sense that they would be involved in the later Rebellion otherwise if they do.

Who says they weren't? The movies by and large follow the adventures of Han, Luke, and Leia, which are in large part spent away from the later Rebellion. Think about it. For most of A New Hope, they were on Tatooine or the Death Star; for most of ESB they were on the run on Dagobah and Bespin, skipping the rendezvous with the fleet entirely; and they spend the first half of Return of the Jedi dealing with Jabba the Hutt, again without help from the Rebellion at large. Even when they're with the Rebels (during the battles of Yavin, Hoth, and Endor), the movie focuses on them and a few fighter pilots; screen time isn't given to the vast majority of Rebels involved in the action.

Adam Reynolds wrote:As someone who generally likes the prequels overall, I really don't understand this. Rogue One should be judged on its own merits rather than compared to what already exists.

One thing Rogue One almost certainly does better than the prequels is that it is about a cast of characters that we have never heard of, as opposed to one that we already know the fates of. Whether or not the cast survives is a major question going into the movie, as opposed to the prequels in which we knew Obi-Wan and Anakin would survive whatever threats they faced. That was partially why Ahsoka was often more interesting in Clone Wars, because we did not actually know her fate.

We'll see how many or if any survive. I really wonder who if anyone survives at this point. If I was going to bet on anyone, it would be Jyn or Cassian, but it would generally make sense that they would be involved in the later Rebellion otherwise if they do.

Something I was thinking about with Vader's appearance in the season two premiere of Rebels is that he largely destroys most of what they fought for even though he doesn't kill or even seriously injure any of the characters. I wonder if this will be the other way around, in which they all die rather than risking failure. I'll see in 55 hours.

I do not for the life of me know where this seeming assumption that most or all of the cast will die in the film comes from. Because the characters aren't in the OT, and the only possible explanation for that is that they're dead and not, you know, that its a big fucking galaxy? I don't recall any real evidence for it, and it would be both wildly divergent from the tone of all previous Star Wars movies (even Episode III) and illogical from a practical standpoint for Disney, because its harder to make money off a character if they die in one film. It just seems like more of the "gratuitous grimdark=quality" fallacy that's so prevalent, and likely a bunch of fans setting themselves up for disappointment when only one or two die, tops.

I can just see it now- a bunch of grimdark-obsessed fans go expecting two hours of bloody deaths and a climbing body count, and come out whining about how the film sucked because it was a Disney kids film, not because it actually was, but because it didn't fit their ill-founded expectations.

Rogue 9 wrote:Who says they weren't? The movies by and large follow the adventures of Han, Luke, and Leia, which are in large part spent away from the later Rebellion. Think about it. For most of A New Hope, they were on Tatooine or the Death Star; for most of ESB they were on the run on Dagobah and Bespin, skipping the rendezvous with the fleet entirely; and they spend the first half of Return of the Jedi dealing with Jabba the Hutt, again without help from the Rebellion at large. Even when they're with the Rebels (during the battles of Yavin, Hoth, and Endor), the movie focuses on them and a few fighter pilots; screen time isn't given to the vast majority of Rebels involved in the action.

You would think that if any of them were still alive by the time of Endor they would have been on the strike team. The person who helped successfully stole the Death Star plans is the sort of person you would want to raid the shield generator assuming they were still alive.

Given that the intelligence side of that operation was something of a disaster by comparison to to the first Death Star, having them involved in that after the sucess of this one seems like something of an insult to the character.

Galvatron wrote:Possibly. Krennic didn't strike me as the typical bumbling Imperial in the novel I just read though. He was cunning, savvy and manipulative in a way that's usually reserved for characters like Thrawn.

As for fans of the old EU, I can't to see how they react to Zahn's upcoming novel that reboots Thrawn's origin.

He may be cunning, but he is also opportunistic. He would likely try and cover up his own mistakes rather than wanting Vader to get involved. This leads to Vader coming in too late to make a true difference. Look at the scene in the trailer of Vader strolling up to Krennic, he doesn't look happy.

As for Thrawn, I actually prefer the new timeline for the character overall. I like the idea that he is a major figure in the Empire proper, such that there can actually be a fairly peaceful existence in the New Republic somewhat quickly post Endor.

The Romulan Republic wrote: I do not for the life of me know where this seeming assumption that most or all of the cast will die in the film comes from. Because the characters aren't in the OT, and the only possible explanation for that is that they're dead and not, you know, that its a big fucking galaxy? I don't recall any real evidence for it, and it would be both wildly divergent from the tone of all previous Star Wars movies (even Episode III) and illogical from a practical standpoint for Disney, because its harder to make money off a character if they die in one film. It just seems like more of the "gratuitous grimdark=quality" fallacy that's so prevalent, and likely a bunch of fans setting themselves up for disappointment when only one or two die, tops.

I can just see it now- a bunch of grimdark-obsessed fans go expecting two hours of bloody deaths and a climbing body count, and come out whining about how the film sucked because it was a Disney kids film, not because it actually was, but because it didn't fit their ill-founded expectations.

It may be a large galaxy, but the Rebellion is small enough that it feels odd that the heroes who stole the Death Star plans don't make an appearance at Endor or Yavin. Retconning them into the OT would feel worse than killing them all off heroically in many ways, as it would then beg the question of why someone so effective did not participate in such important battles as we saw. Character sacrifices don't have to be grimdark, heroic sacrifices can in fact be heroic.

I had previously argued the same thing, but thinking about what happened in Rebels caused me to reassess this. The truth is that if it comes down to survival or mission completion, mission completion has to win. The crew of the Ghost are not willing to make that trade, but the crew of Rogue One obviously must be.

Making the characters too successful also lessens the importance of Luke and company, as they would then be less necessary. Rebels generally gives things smaller stakes in this respect, for Rogue One it would make the most sense to have very few cast members survive instead.

Adam Reynolds wrote:It may be a large galaxy, but the Rebellion is small enough that it feels odd that the heroes who stole the Death Star plans don't make an appearance at Endor or Yavin. Retconning them into the OT would feel worse than killing them all off heroically in many ways, as it would then beg the question of why someone so effective did not participate in such important battles as we saw. Character sacrifices don't have to be grimdark, heroic sacrifices can in fact be heroic.

The Rebellion isn't that small. And their's no reason for this team to be in most of the battles in the film. They're presumably a covert ops. team. The focus in the films is largely on star fighters, with a bit of front-line infantry at Hoth, when its not just the core characters off on their own adventure.

The only time in the OT when Jyn's group would be relevant would be in RotJ, for either rescuing Han from Jabba or raiding the Endor bunker. For the former, it was pretty clearly something Han's friends put together with little or no support from the rest of the Alliance, and for the latter... well, its not like the Rebels only have one commando team, surely?

Their is zero reason that their absence should seem contrived or inexplicable.

And, yes, sacrifices can be heroic, and they can be well-written. I don't object to the idea that some, or even most of the team could die from a dramatic perspective. I do object to the idea that it is somehow necessary that they do so, or that the film will inherently suffer if they don't, and in any case I think it doubtful that the film will go that route from a practical, real-world perspective.

I had previously argued the same thing, but thinking about what happened in Rebels caused me to reassess this. The truth is that if it comes down to survival or mission completion, mission completion has to win. The crew of the Ghost are not willing to make that trade, but the crew of Rogue One obviously must be.

Willing to, yes. And I think it would probably be in the films' favour to have some casualties, because this shouldn't be a cake walk. But their is no necessity to kill the entire team in a single film, or even the bulk of the team. It could be done, and it could be done well, but it isn't in any way necessary.

Making the characters too successful also lessens the importance of Luke and company, as they would then be less necessary. Rebels generally gives things smaller stakes in this respect, for Rogue One it would make the most sense to have very few cast members survive instead.

I'm not sure how it would make Luke, etc. less necessary. Their can only be one competent group in the Alliance? This seems like a rationalization for your position, more than an actual reason for it.

In any case, Luke was necessary for dealing with Vader and Palpatine. The only way a character could make Luke unimportant would be if they had the ability to connect with and redeem Vader and take on Sith Lords as he did. The only character who even comes close to that is Ashoka, not anyone in Jyn's team, and even she doesn't match Luke's potential.

I managed to catch an early screening. The movie has some rough edges but it's very good. I would recommend people watch it, which is more than what I would say for a whole bunch of other movies this year.

Adam Reynolds wrote:What is it with people trying to make Star Wars grimdark?

Also, just a quick note - the movie is definitely not grimdark. It's not even Saving Private Ryan in terms of dark. I would suggest - without really spoiling anything - that it would fit somewhere between The Dirty Dozen and Seven Samurai in terms of "darkness".

Zinegata wrote: Also, just a quick note - the movie is definitely not grimdark. It's not even Saving Private Ryan in terms of dark. I would suggest - without really spoiling anything - that it would fit somewhere between The Dirty Dozen and Seven Samurai in terms of "darkness".

That sort of is what I expected. How would you say it compares to The Force Awakens?

Adam Reynolds wrote:

Zinegata wrote: Also, just a quick note - the movie is definitely not grimdark. It's not even Saving Private Ryan in terms of dark. I would suggest - without really spoiling anything - that it would fit somewhere between The Dirty Dozen and Seven Samurai in terms of "darkness".

That sort of is what I expected. How would you say it compares to The Force Awakens?

Tough to do a comparison without spoiling anything... but I would say that the overall flow is a bit rougher than The Force Awakens. There are points where it was rather clear they had to rush things or reuse materials imperfectly due to the well-publicized re-shoots.

That said, the overall story is fairly solid and comes together the further you are into the movie (as opposed to BvS, where the re-edits basically turned the whole thing into a series of disjointed clip shows which falls apart more and more as the movie progresses). If this is an example of a troubled Disney production, then Warner is pretty much screwed because Rogue One is still way ahead of both DC releases.

Story-wise it's certainly more original than Force Awakens - but I feel it's too subjective to say whether or not it's better. They are very different movies.

I will say that Rogue One possibly sports the best actual battle in the whole film series - and by "battle" I mean massed combat sequences as opposed to individual Jedi duels.

It still has a bit of Star Wars goofiness, but nothing like the Ewok battle in Return of the Jedi or the Gungan catapults. It also doesn't have the same scale as the Coruscant battle in Revenge of the Sith, but the pieces in play are used better and there's an actual flow to the fight. Indeed, it's a bit telling of how ho-hum the last "battle" in Force Awakens really is (where you basically had a bunch of quick fighter sequences mixed with Jedi duelling and some shooting) when you compare it to Rogue One.