criterionforum.org

Rogue One is essentially the story about these lines in the original opening crawl of the 1977 film:

"Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.

During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet."

It's basically the Dirty Dozen, SW remix.

The Death Star is the whole story, and it's not like it gets destroyed here. Unless they add a gratuitous epilogue. I'm guessing the plans for this were in motion from the moment the Standalone films were announced and if anything Abrams and Co. are to blame for stepping on this film's toes.

I might actually watch this if the three Gilroys do a commentary track à la Nightcrawler

A full trailer for Rogue One just played during an Olympics commercial break and it looks REALLY good.

And here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frdj1zb9sMY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow! I wasn't expecting something so visually stunning. Really looking forward to his film.

That does look fantastic

I feel like the breathing/behind back shot should have opened the trailer, and then ended with a frontal shot of Vader. It's the worst kept secret tease to those in the know he's in this thing, might as well start showcasing him for the non-fanatics. That said, it does look quite good despite the production delays.

Michael Giacchino has replaced Alexandre Desplat on Rogue One, apparently because the reshoots also rearranged the post-production schedule and Desplat was no longer available.

Kirkinson wrote:Michael Giacchino has replaced Alexandre Desplat on Rogue One, apparently because the reshoots also rearranged the post-production schedule and Desplat was no longer available.

That might be the most definitive proof yet that this film is undergoing a major overhaul, not just a more-extensive-than-usual set of pick-ups and re-shoots.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure Gareth Edwards is capable of delivering a satisfactory story on any level. To be fair to his filmography, he only wrote MONSTERS, but once you removed the, admittedly, impressive sense of scale in his visual effects for his previous two movies, you're left with hollow skeletons of story, characterisation and pacing.

At least to me.

I've tired to sit through Godzilla three times, once in the theatre and twice at home, and fallen asleep at the exact same spot each attempt. The night I tried to watch MONSTERS six years ago was the night my wife went into labour, and I welcomed the respite from the film.

He's not a storyteller, he's a visual effects artist, in the same way that Zack Snyder isn't a filmmaker, he's an art director.

Sounds like Disney pulled a studio-era Hollywood and actually made it better by meddling

To be fair, their meddling involved hiring Tony Gilroy to rewrite and reshoot a good deal of material, and Gilroy is definitely a great deal better than the previous talent. (His conversational commentary with Soderbergh on Criterion's BD for The Third Man is also one of the best ones they've ever done.)

If Kevin Smith likes it, oh man - gamechanger

I got a headache after trying to read Richard Brody's review.

The director of “Rogue One,” Gareth Edwards, has stepped into a mythopoetic stew so half-baked and overcooked, a morass of pre-instantly overanalyzed implications of such shuddering impact to the series’ fundamentalists, that he lumbers through, seemingly stunned or constrained or cautious to the vanishing point of passivity, and lets neither the characters nor the formidable cast of actors nor even the special effects, of which he has previously proved himself to be a master, come anywhere close to life.

what the?!? Did he swallow the spirit of Armond White?

It sounds very much in the spirit of Edwards' Godzilla remake then (the film which pointedly never critiqued the motives of either military complex or the news media broacasting the monster's antics!)

The director of “Rogue One,” [Gareth Edwards], has stepped into a mythopoetic stew [so half-baked and overcooked, a morass of pre-instantly overanalyzed implications of such shuddering impact to the series’ fundamentalists,] that he lumbers through, [seemingly stunned or constrained or cautious to the vanishing point of passivity], and lets neither the characters nor the formidable cast of actors nor even the special effects, [of which he has previously proved himself to be a master,] come anywhere close to life.

He has a pretty inefficient 50% yield.

You know what Richard Brody would benefit from (in this particular review)? The liberal use of brackets to go off on wild tangents within sentences. I can highly recommend them!

A.O. Scott was less than impressed.

[W]hether the fractures in the Rebel Alliance and the power struggles in the imperial ranks quicken our pulses and engage our emotions — is the big question, but it really isn’t a question at all. Millions of people will sit through this thoroughly mediocre movie (directed with basic competence by Gareth Edwards from a surprisingly hackish script by Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy) and convince themselves that it’s perfectly delightful. It’s so much easier to obey than to resist.

I'll probably see it in a few weeks, and will probably find it (like TFA) something relatively enjoyable, but that I don't need to see a second time. (But who am I kidding? I'm trying to temper my expectations.)

dx23 wrote:I got a headache after trying to read Richard Brody's review.

The director of “Rogue One,” Gareth Edwards, has stepped into a mythopoetic stew so half-baked and overcooked, a morass of pre-instantly overanalyzed implications of such shuddering impact to the series’ fundamentalists, that he lumbers through, seemingly stunned or constrained or cautious to the vanishing point of passivity, and lets neither the characters nor the formidable cast of actors nor even the special effects, of which he has previously proved himself to be a master, come anywhere close to life.

what the?!? Did he swallow the spirit of Armond White?

Ha!

He literally just articulated *exactly* the same comments as all the posters on the page above your post.

jbeall wrote:A.O. Scott was less than impressed.

[W]hether the fractures in the Rebel Alliance and the power struggles in the imperial ranks quicken our pulses and engage our emotions — is the big question, but it really isn’t a question at all. Millions of people will sit through this thoroughly mediocre movie (directed with basic competence by Gareth Edwards from a surprisingly hackish script by Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy) and convince themselves that it’s perfectly delightful. It’s so much easier to obey than to resist.

Seemingly only further reinforcing the decidedly fanfic-y direction Disney is taking the franchise... :-$

Any Star Wars film written by someone who isn't Lucas is technically going to be "fan fiction," that's a toothless criticism

mfunk9786 wrote:Any Star Wars film written by someone who isn't Lucas is technically going to be "fan fiction," that's a toothless criticism

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The best thing to happen to Star Wars was for it to lose George Lucas. As entirely adequate (or poor) as this film may be I'm certain it'll be an improvement over Lucas' poop jokes.