Rouge One - First Impressions

[Newyankalt]

Yeah I rate it as my 3rd favorite as one, my list goes:

ESB

ANH

R1

ROTS

ROTJ/ TFA

TPM

APTC

 

 

I really liked the characters in this movie, loved all the Rebels. Cassian, Jyn, Chirrut, Baze and K2 where all cool in their own ways. Jyn is WAY better then Rey who is compete Mary Sue.

 

Loved the locations and the variety as well, I really liked that space trading outpost as the start that Cassian was at, cool design.

[TalonVII]

Everyone catch the major easter eggs to Rebels? I mean I know I saw the Ghost in the Rebel fleet lineup and they did make a comment about General Sendulla. And unless Sendulla is a common last name, they are likely talking about Hera.

 

So we could see the final battle of Rogue One pop up in Rebels and see another side of it, which should be SICK.

[Kaisernick]

If I ever get the urge to be preached at with SJW and feminist issues .

Dude none of the movies are SJW and feminist and if you really believe that then im sorry but you have a weird view on star wars.

 

Just because two of the leads have been female does not mean its done for feminist issues hell females have always been strong leaders in Star Wars Leia is a prime example of this so if you dislike women leading then how on earth can you even like star wars?

[TalonVII]

Dude none of the movies are SJW and feminist and if you really believe that then im sorry but you have a weird view on star wars.

 

Just because two of the leads have been female does not mean its done for feminist issues hell females have always been strong leaders in Star Wars Leia is a prime example of this so if you dislike women leading then how on earth can you even like star wars?

 

Star Wars was actually quite forward thinking when it came to females. Leia, Mon Mothma, Padme. All well established leaders.

[Zhedzaban]

Umm dude lol, troll so much harder please. This movie was one giant EU story. If you like the EU you will love this movie. If you arent trolling you are so full of hatred and if jsw and feminist issues put you in a tail spin you are a sad sad little little man.

 

Umm....I don't think EU means what you think it means.

 

But anyway, I have no issues with female leads at all. But when they are thrown in there for an agenda and no other purpose, then it gets my back up. Don't believe me, read what JJ Abrams has said about casting. He basically states no white men allowed, not for artistic reasons but purely SJW issues. It's disgusting and all those actors in TFA should feel used.

 

Now, it's natural to assume feminism was at the forefront when the Rogue One promos came out several months ago and we saw we were getting yet another 'kickass sassy' female lead. It felt that another star wars movie was being hijacked by the feminist agenda and the lead character was just another female plant. But, after reading through this thread I'm hopeful that I'm wrong and the female lead is there for legitimate story reasons.

[Rabin_Lorac]

Umm....I don't think EU means what you think it means.

 

But anyway, I have no issues with female leads at all. But when they are thrown in there for an agenda and no other purpose, then it gets my back up. Don't believe me, read what JJ Abrams has said about casting. He basically states no white men allowed, not for artistic reasons but purely SJW issues. It's disgusting and all those actors in TFA should feel used.

 

Now, it's natural to assume feminism was at the forefront when the Rogue One promos came out several months ago and we saw we were getting yet another 'kickass sassy' female lead. It felt that another star wars movie was being hijacked by the feminist agenda and the lead character was just another female plant. But, after reading through this thread I'm hopeful that I'm wrong and the female lead is there for legitimate story reasons.

 

I do not know what EU means lol. Funny you just stated I do not but cant explaining it either. So let me go into some detail for you:

 

Extended Universe

Rebel Dawn 3rd book in the new han solo trilogy

Bria han solos old girlfriend is part of the rebel special forces and the leader of red hand squadron. She is the hero, she steals the death star plans, and she was the one to beam them to tantive iv. She also dies in the battle with the rest of red hand squadron.

 

This book was published in 1998.

 

Strong female lead, gets the plans, dies.

 

Sound familiar?

 

SJW LOL!

 

Epic fail.

[fovzwk]

But, after reading through this thread I'm hopeful that I'm wrong and the female lead is there for legitimate story reasons.

Movies now need legitimate story reasons for the protagonist to be female? Really? And what exactly is a legitimate story reason for a protagonist to be female in your opinion?

[t-darko]

So how about sharing opinions, impressions, thoughts, hope and fears without resorting to personal bickering; So all doesn't like chocolate, some of us ate some and thought it was really good, some of us ate some and thought a special kind were only worth eating, some of us thought all chocolate was good. Some decided never to eat chocolate again. Now who gets to decide which chocolate is best!? And is there really a certain chocolate just for boys OR girls?

[Rabin_Lorac]

So how about sharing opinions, impressions, thoughts, hope and fears without resorting to personal bickering; So all doesn't like chocolate, some of us ate some and thought it was really good, some of us ate some and thought a special kind were only worth eating, some of us thought all chocolate was good. Some decided never to eat chocolate again. Now who gets to decide which chocolate is best!? And is there really a certain chocolate just for boys OR girls?

 

No, the problem is that some people said they will not try the chocolate because of what it looks like. They didn't even get to taste it before using their own prejudice against it.

[Zhedzaban]

Movies now need legitimate story reasons for the protagonist to be female? Really? And what exactly is a legitimate story reason for a protagonist to be female in your opinion?

 

I'm surprised I need to spell this out. It would appear you just want to make my comments more sinister than they really are.

 

Examples of legitimate story reasons for picking a female lead as opposed to male:

 

- It adds depth to the story

- makes the character more empathetic to the audience

- Story works better with a female lead

- Maybe the best actor applying for the job just turned out to be female

 

Examples of illegitimate story reason for picking a female lead as opposed to male:

 

- Sex sells

- Affirmative action

- Pushing a feminist agenda

 

Now I assumed the only reason was because of the feminist agenda being pushed by the SJW at Disney. Turns out it may have been a bad assumption on my part and i'm glad I'm wrong. But the precedence was set by TFA so I see nothing to apologise for.

[Zhedzaban]

No, the problem is that some people said they will not try the chocolate because of what it looks like. They didn't even get to taste it before using their own prejudice against it.

 

I have clearly derailed the thread so I won't post anymore comments here.

 

Apologies to the OP.

[DarthDymond]

I'm surprised I need to spell this out. It would appear you just want to make my comments more sinister than they really are.

 

Examples of legitimate story reasons for picking a female lead as opposed to male:

 

- It adds depth to the story

- makes the character more empathetic to the audience

- Story works better with a female lead

- Maybe the best actor applying for the job just turned out to be female

 

Examples of illegitimate story reason for picking a female lead as opposed to male:

 

- Sex sells

- Affirmative action

- Pushing a feminist agenda

 

Now I assumed the only reason was because of the feminist agenda being pushed by the SJW at Disney. Turns out it may have been a bad assumption on my part and i'm glad I'm wrong. But the precedence was set by TFA so I see nothing to apologise for.

I'm sorry, but it seems like this reasoning sets things up such that you're treating a male lead as the default normal way to have a story and a female lead as the deviation from the norm that needs to be justified by some "legitimate reason".

 

Sadly, that's the baseline assumption that Hollywood tends to hold, as well - which is why a "feminist agenda" (aka "hey, the sexes should be treated equally") probably belongs up in that "legitimate reason" category anyway.

[Frenesi]

I'm sorry, but it seems like this reasoning sets things up such that you're treating a male lead as the default normal way to have a story and a female lead as the deviation from the norm that needs to be justified by some "legitimate reason".

 

Sadly, that's the baseline assumption that Hollywood tends to hold, as well - which is why a "feminist agenda" (aka "hey, the sexes should be treated equally") probably belongs up in that "legitimate reason" category anyway.

 

Let's put it this way - there are certain archetypes revolving around man and woman. They serve different roles in storytelling, and it will remain so as long as people have different sexes with different functionality. When you don't utilize those archetypes, you take away from character's potential, and risk turning it into faceless peace of wood.

 

Like, what happened with Rey. She's made so *********** perfect and i-don't-need-your-help-I'm-strong-woman that she becomes unlikable. It's impossible to worry about her - she's so perfect she will succeed anyway. She doesn't utilize a single trait from woman archetypes - and as such becomes bland and unnatural.

 

Jyn, on the other hand, is more feminine. She takes parts from woman archetype, being unifying force and symbol of hope. She isn't perfect. She makes mistakes and relies on help, which makes her more believable, and makes it possible to worry about her - because she can fail.

 

Now, first one is your typical retarded "feminist-agenda" hero. Second one is strong female character done right (could be better obviously. Rogue one kinda dropped the ball with character development).

[DarthDymond]

Let's put it this way - there are certain archetypes revolving around man and woman. They serve different roles in storytelling, and it will remain so as long as people have different sexes with different functionality. When you don't utilize those archetypes, you take away from character's potential, and risk turning it into faceless peace of wood.

 

Like, what happened with Rey. She's made so *********** perfect and i-don't-need-your-help-I'm-strong-woman that she becomes unlikable. It's impossible to worry about her - she's so perfect she will succeed anyway. She doesn't utilize a single trait from woman archetypes - and as such becomes bland and unnatural.

 

Jyn, on the other hand, is more feminine. She takes parts from woman archetype, being unifying force and symbol of hope. She isn't perfect. She makes mistakes and relies on help, which makes her more believable, and makes it possible to worry about her - because she can fail.

 

Now, first one is your typical retarded "feminist-agenda" hero. Second one is strong female character done right (could be better obviously. Rogue one kinda dropped the ball with character development).

Okay, you have a very different worldview if you endorse those types of gendered archetypes - particularly if you want to say that 'capable, self-sufficient action hero in a sci-fi / fantasy story' should be a "male" archetype.

 

I agree that male characters have traditionally been pigeonholed into roles / character traits [A], , [C], [D]... while women characters have traditionally been pigeonholed into roles / character traits [Y] and [Z], but saying that breaking out of those roles / traits "takes away" from a character strikes me as having things backwards.

 

You want to say that the 'too-perfect, can't-fail, no-flaws action hero' is a boring character that it is hard to connect with, that's all well and good, but whether that character is male or female has nothing to do with that issue.

Edited December 22, 2016 by DarthDymond

[Frenesi]

Okay, you have a very different worldview if you endorse those types of gendered archetypes - particularly if you want to say that 'capable, self-sufficient action hero in a sci-fi / fantasy story' should be a "male" archetype.

 

You want to say that the 'too-perfect, can't-fail, no-flaws action hero' is a boring character that it is hard to connect with, that's all well and good, but whether that character is male or female has nothing to do with that issue.

 

I guess i should have put more thought into that explanation. Oh well.

 

First of all, you somewhat misunderstand how storytelling archetypes work. To put it shortly - it's a mess unchanged probably from the times of stone age. And it will remain so as long as woman give birth to children, while man retain physical superiority. On most basic of levels woman gets associated with life, while man - with death. And whole bunch of other polar opposite stuff. And then it got cemented with centuries of myths, tales and stories. Unless you come from Moon, you carry all that baggage as well, consciously or not. And since good storytelling aims for hidden things inside us, it also gets to work with those archetypes. It's a choice of storyteller to either utilize them or not, but they can be used to make character much more powerful and deep.

 

And before somebody gets triggered - no, I don't mean woman are somehow worse than man. But they are different. You need to be blind to not recognize it.

 

I agree that male characters have traditionally been pigeonholed into roles / character traits [A], , [C], [D]... while women characters have traditionally been pigeonholed into roles / character traits [Y] and [Z], but saying that breaking out of those roles / traits "takes away" from a character strikes me as having things backwards.

 

It's not about roles. Archetypes are different from them. To illustrate, try to imagine story of Jeanne d'Arc, but with Jeanne being man. Then try, for example, to imagine king Arthur as woman. And try to analyze how perception of them will change.

 

"capable, self-sufficient action hero in a sci-fi / fantasy story' should be a "male" archetype"

 

I don't say that. What I'm saying is that male "capable self-sufficient action hero" is different from female "capable self-sufficient action hero". They work differently. Their stories touch different strings. And if you try to shoehorn one into another, you get bad results, turning character into genderless, and ultimately lifeless puppet. And if you want to say something about "realism" - stop please. Stories never are realistic on that level. That's not their point.

 

You want to say that the 'too-perfect, can't-fail, no-flaws action hero' is a boring character that it is hard to connect with, that's all well and good, but whether that character is male or female has nothing to do with that issue.

 

True. We definitely have no shortage of bland boring male protagonists. However, I also don't feel that it was that simple with Rey. She isn't just bland and boring, she is actively pushed into such state to show how 'strong and equal" she is. Just as Flinn is pushed into "damsel in distress" state, which looks pathetic to say the least. Both could have been different, and much better characters.

 

Do we really need to pursue equality bu taking female characters and turning them into "white male action heroes' with ****? Because for me it looks pretty disrespectful towards woman.

[taschaungol]

 

After all that with the force awakens, rogue one was directed by a Godzilla director with almost no other experience and it came out to be so amazing. Rogue one is what all of us as kids dreamt up when we played sw with all of our figures and vehicles.

 

I loved this movie. I saw a short interview with Gareth Edwards a few days ago, where he said that he watched Star Wars as a 6 year old kid every week (or it might even have been every day!) and thought he must have seen the movies at least 300 times. Perhaps that goes a long way in explaining the feel of this one, which he also said was made as a war movie with the camera embedded in the action to make everything more immediate.

 

I saw the original in 1977 when I was 21, and it still catches my emotions. I think that might be why so many people did like TFA who were there for the first one - it was like seeing that original movie again. I've never read any of the comics or seen any cartoons, so the movies are all I know, apart from SWTOR.

 

As an aside, I wonder who has noticed that in The Empire Strikes Back, there's the watcher who reports in seeing something large landing in the snow, with the call sign "Rogue Two". Is that coincidence, or Gareth Edwards managing to make the Rogue One team's exploits become part of even the later movies internal histories?.

[taschaungol]

Stories never are realistic on that level. That's not their point.

 

I agree with that. George RR Martin castigated tweeters a year or two ago who were complaining that an episode of Game Of Thrones had an event that wasn't in the book; he told them that stories are what is in our heads, not what is on the page, and everyone's story will be different. Movies, books, just different views of a story that may or may not have happened in the way that either of them retell it.

[fovzwk]

Just as Flinn is pushed into "damsel in distress" state, which looks pathetic to say the least. Both could have been different, and much better characters.

 

What? How is Finn a damsel in distress. He is the only one of the three main heroes who doesn't get captured during the movie. On the contrary he saves Poe out of distress. He even saves Rey when he distracts Kylo long enough for her to recover from being knocked out against a tree.

I'm starting to think that you are mistaking the comedic sidekick hero for the damsel in distress.

 

To illustrate, try to imagine story of Jeanne d'Arc, but with Jeanne being man.

The story of a man fighting for the freedom of his country from English oppression who then get's betrayed, sold out to the english and brutally killed to become a martyr? That already exists. It's a movie called Braveheart.

Edited December 22, 2016 by fovzwk

[Rabin_Lorac]

I loved this movie. I saw a short interview with Gareth Edwards a few days ago, where he said that he watched Star Wars as a 6 year old kid every week (or it might even have been every day!) and thought he must have seen the movies at least 300 times. Perhaps that goes a long way in explaining the feel of this one, which he also said was made as a war movie with the camera embedded in the action to make everything more immediate.

 

I saw the original in 1977 when I was 21, and it still catches my emotions. I think that might be why so many people did like TFA who were there for the first one - it was like seeing that original movie again. I've never read any of the comics or seen any cartoons, so the movies are all I know, apart from SWTOR.

 

As an aside, I wonder who has noticed that in The Empire Strikes Back, there's the watcher who reports in seeing something large landing in the snow, with the call sign "Rogue Two". Is that coincidence, or Gareth Edwards managing to make the Rogue One team's exploits become part of even the later movies internal histories?.

 

In ESB we learn that Luke is now a commander and in charge of Rogue Squadron. He is rogue leader, Wedge, Hobbie, and Zev (Rogue 2, who finds Han Solo) are also part of it. It is the rebels elite pilots. All canon, right from direct lines of the movie.

 

While so far this connection has not been conical explained and I do not think it does, Rogue Squadron was named after Rogue One in honor of their sacrifice and Rogue One's first successful strike against the Empire. This first battle allowed the survival of the rebellion on Yavin. So, not only was Rogue One the first successful strike, but also the savior of the rebellion.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Rabin_Lorac

[taschaungol]

In ESB we learn that Luke is now a commander and in charge of Rogue Squadron. He is rogue leader, Wedge, Hobbie, and Zev (Rogue 2, who finds Han Solo) are also part of it. It is the rebels elite pilots. All canon, right from direct lines of the movie.

 

While so far this connection has not been conical explained and I do not think it does, Rogue Squadron was named after Rogue One in honor of their sacrifice and Rogue One's first successful strike against the Empire. This first battle allowed the survival of the rebellion on Yavin. So, not only was Rogue One the first successful strike, but also the savior of the rebellion.

 

Well that I didn't know. Thanks for the info. I'm quite pleased that my surmise was actually correct.

[Darthmalzai]

What is wrong with xwings destroying the walkers? Walkers do not have much when it comes to anti air, the xwings came from high and behind, xwings are designed to attack capital ships and freighters and cruisers and you think atats can stand up against them? Thats why the xwings took them out on thair first strafe run. Oh let me guess you have no problems when the xwing strafed the death star and caused major damage in new hope?

 

Storm troopers werent terrible. They wasted the rebel troops. Do you not remember that most of the ground troops died once the storm troopers recovered from the surprise attack? And I am not talking about the death troopers. And the scene on jedha when the rebels opened fired on the tank like 4 of them went down with return fire from the storm troopers and while the imps did take a lot of hits it was a text book guerrilla ambush in a tight spaced controlled environment of the rebels choosing.

 

You either are a troll or your head is completely in the clouds if you are disappointed in this movie.

 

Wow, so because I don't praise the movie like everyone else im a troll or a stupid person? It seems you can't let the movie take criticism. What's wrong with x-wings destroying the AT-AT's like that is because in The empire strikes back they couldnt destroy the walkers like that. They had to use cables instead. In Rogue one they shot like 5 blaster shots instead, very anticlimax. If it is the difference in ships then it just show how stupid the rebels are. They had x-wings escorting the ships that escaped the attack. Just take them and destroy the walkers in like 5 seconds like they did in Rogue one and then escape.

 

The storm troopers were really bad and if you dont believe me. That imperial pilot that deserted never hid his face and no one recognized him. And when there is a huge attack on their base and they see a guy dressed like a rebel tinkering with the equipment, should we point our guns at him? NO! lets ask him what he is doing and if he is a rebel he will say that. Every imperial guy we see have uniforms that looks nothing like what the rebels have. So why is it so hard for them to know who are the rebels in their own base?

[Burrowa]

I must confess I have zero interest in Rogue 1 and to me the franchise is dead as long as Disney has the rights to it.

 

If I ever get the urge to be preached at with SJW and feminist issues I'll go take a look

 

My thoughts, exactly.

[Rabin_Lorac]

Wow, so because I don't praise the movie like everyone else im a troll or a stupid person? It seems you can't let the movie take criticism. What's wrong with x-wings destroying the AT-AT's like that is because in The empire strikes back they couldnt destroy the walkers like that. They had to use cables instead. In Rogue one they shot like 5 blaster shots instead, very anticlimax. If it is the difference in ships then it just show how stupid the rebels are. They had x-wings escorting the ships that escaped the attack. Just take them and destroy the walkers in like 5 seconds like they did in Rogue one and then escape.

 

The storm troopers were really bad and if you dont believe me. That imperial pilot that deserted never hid his face and no one recognized him. And when there is a huge attack on their base and they see a guy dressed like a rebel tinkering with the equipment, should we point our guns at him? NO! lets ask him what he is doing and if he is a rebel he will say that. Every imperial guy we see have uniforms that looks nothing like what the rebels have. So why is it so hard for them to know who are the rebels in their own base?

 

In the battle of hoth they xwings were tasked at escorting the transports. They had many transports to protect, but they had a limited amount of xwings. That was in the briefing. The airspeeders were tasked to ground support since they are not space worthy. They mentioned in the movie that they were having difficulty adapting them to the cold. That could explain why the weapons were not strong enough because maybe they were not fully operational, all I know is that they were having problems with the airspeeders int he cold.

 

Also the walkers are different hoth had atat which has chin and side mounted fast tracking anti air. There is a scene were one of the airspeeders is zooming by while the atat is turning and the side guns quickly track it and fire upon it and destroy it. That atact in rogue one had only large side guns and again they were attacked from behind and high. Also in rogue one we see that the orange cargo part of the atact can be removed since that is the cargo module. These models might have weaker armor while the atat is moore focused on assault and has tougher armor. Especially since Luke states that the armor is too tough for their blasters.

 

The imperial pilot is obviously panicking. he cant talk straight, think straight, is flustered, and ummm PANICKING. When you stated they they approached him on scariff you know he was still wearing his imp pilot outfit right lol. He never took it off and you can see the imp emblem on it. again on jedha when the rebels attacked the hover tank 4 of them go down right as they fired their first shots against the imps and soon most of them died especially when the reinforcements showed up. On scariff the rebels were getting picked off one by one after their first surprise attack. once the imps put on their counter attack all the rebels died. imps easily took over the landing pad where the shuttle was killing the 3 troopers there guarding it and then blowing up the cargo ship with the traitor imp pilot.

[Wolfninjajedi]

In the battle of hoth they xwings were tasked at escorting the transports. They had many transports to protect, but they had a limited amount of xwings. That was in the briefing. The airspeeders were tasked to ground support since they are not space worthy. They mentioned in the movie that they were having difficulty adapting them to the cold. That could explain why the weapons were not strong enough because maybe they were not fully operational, all I know is that they were having problems with the airspeeders int he cold.

 

Just noting, the Snowspeeders did get fixed to adapt to the cold, this is why Rogue 2 and the other speeders were able to find Luke and Han the morning after the blizzard.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Wolfninjajedi

[Damedius]

Just got finished watching the movie. I didn't have a lot of hope after TFA and the prequels. I had pretty much written off Star Wars.

 

Damn was that a good movie. I would say it's possibly the best Star Wars movie ever made. It's like they finally decided to make a movie for fans of the originals instead of trying to make movies for kids.

 

I'm not sure if they can salvage 8 and 9 after 7 but Rogue One was one hell of a movie.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Damedius