Page 56 • Star Wars: Rogue One • Non-Gaming • Film • Eurogamer.net

Lukus 9 Jan 2017 20:56:37 24,639 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 17 years ago

ubergine wrote:
Christ, movies referring to their prequels / sequels "raises eyebrows" - I believe the purpose of these movies is to be a bit of fun?

I wonder if some of you guys take the official blueprints of fantasy spaceships to the movies with you to check everything is in order. Galaxy Quest wants a word with you.

Honestly, I never seen a bigger bunch of little bitches when someone happens not to have enjoyed certain aspects of a film as much as them. Do you really need everyone to agree with you that badly?

richarddavies 9 Jan 2017 21:02:37 8,312 posts
Seen 42 minutes ago
Registered 13 years ago

I like that ubergines bitching about all the bitching and then you bitch about his bitching of the bitching................. And now I'm bitching about your bitching about his bitching.

#eurogamer

Lukus 9 Jan 2017 21:08:05 24,639 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 17 years ago

HaughtonMills wrote:
Lukus, get over it

Ok, re-registered dickhead #312

Saul_Iscariot 9 Jan 2017 21:08:06 4,399 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 9 years ago

No, not at all. People need to enjoy different aspects of things that appeal to them. I have no problem with someone saying Rogue One is absolute dogshit, but I'd like them to be able to tell me why. Like that Mad Max film a few years back. I really didn't enjoy it, and stated why. I was told by the mindless drones that I had missed the subtlety of the narrative, despite mentioning the ham fisted way that less than subtle approach was part of the problem for me. I could have stood someone saying they took something different from the film from me, but they enjoyed it nonetheless. But dismissing my lack of enjoyment on the basis they thought it was cleverer than it was did leave me feeling chuff you lot. That has nothing to do with the subject, but the need for others to feel superior and not engage in a discussion.

ModoX 9 Jan 2017 22:16:10 3,480 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 12 years ago

I'd agree with your otherwise insightful post but you didn't like Fury Road so I can't take anything you say seriously

Trowel 9 Jan 2017 22:30:23 24,512 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 18 years ago

I don't understand the fuss over Mad Max either.

But I also don't understand why Rogue One had the same "fan service" shot of X-wings taking off 3 times, yet we're not supposed to question the direction.

Edited by Trowel at 22:30:45 09-01-2017

disusedgenius 9 Jan 2017 22:56:51 10,677 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 14 years ago

You keep on saying that like it makes sense.

challenge_hanukkah 9 Jan 2017 23:02:15 14,394 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 8 years ago

It wasn't a remake.

MrSensible 9 Jan 2017 23:57:43 26,517 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 16 years ago

I've seen Rogue One multiple times now and I'm still not sure what you mean about the same shot of X-Wings. I certainly haven't noticed it.

cov 10 Jan 2017 00:49:54 2,524 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 18 years ago

@ModoX

I quite liked fury road but if I didn't I certainly wouldn't be persuaded by someone telling me 'I had missed the subtlety of the narrative' about a film with barely any narrative and what there was consisted of repeated punches to the audiences senses (in a good way).

As to the star wars/star trek/sci fi nit picking it is hilarious tbh as these sketchy universes are treated as real with attempt to discern some sort of continuity or authenticity that the makers often clearly didn't intend at the time and which is fundamentally contradictory to the very nature of speculative fiction.

oops bit too serious erm okay tldr... nerds are anally retentive, over analyse, and end up ruining their ability to enjoy what they used to love.

Edited by cov at 00:51:52 10-01-2017

Mola_Ram 10 Jan 2017 01:48:07 26,187 posts
Seen 33 minutes ago
Registered 9 years ago

Yeah, personally I didn't go into Fury Road expecting a "subtle narrative", as opposed to one of the best damn action movies of the last 5 years. For me it it would be like trying to appreciate a period costume drama for the special effects and stunt work.

Edited by Mola_Ram at 01:53:50 10-01-2017

Mola_Ram 10 Jan 2017 01:49:09 26,187 posts
Seen 33 minutes ago
Registered 9 years ago

cov wrote:
oops bit too serious erm okay tldr... nerds are anally retentive, over analyse, and end up ruining their ability to enjoy what they used to love.

But what if people enjoy analysing something? I might strongly disagree with it (see above), but I don't think they're "ruining" anything by choosing to watch it in a different way to you and I.

Edited by Mola_Ram at 01:55:14 10-01-2017

Khanivor 10 Jan 2017 02:15:27 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

ubergine wrote:
Star Wars was absolutely made for toy sales! Lucas may be the worst most-successful director of all time, but he had a stroke of business genius with building a toy empire.

That'll be why they were selling pieces of cardboard as no one had got round to making any toys.

There was an insane amount of merchandising that eventually came out. But toys? A couple dozen figures with three years and a half dozen or so soaceships and play sets.

cov 10 Jan 2017 07:17:48 2,524 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 18 years ago

Mola_Ram wrote:

cov wrote:
oops bit too serious erm okay tldr... nerds are anally retentive, over analyse, and end up ruining their ability to enjoy what they used to love.
But what if people enjoy analysing something? I might strongly disagree with it (see above), but I don't think they're "ruining" anything by choosing to watch it in a different way to you and I.

nothing wrong with analysing anything - far from it - but I would argue it is reductive analysing, or in fact projecting unrealistic expectations onto the film/book. It could be argued it is the fault of the studios taking advantage of the whole notion of fan service as it comes to bite them in the ass (but then again it doesn't exactly hurt box office).

Again projecting meaning/significance isn't always problematic - but there is a snake eating its own tail dynamic going on - films made because of fervent fans end up being impossible to realise fan expectation because the universe is now in a sense owned by the fans.

Always felt that was the problem with the SW prequels - Lucas tried to serve the mythos that had grown around SW. The original SW and ST were sketchy universes, suggestive ones, imagination could fill the blanks. Now it seems that they have to obey laws and histories and have a faux coherency that have accumulated over time. Its this which I'd suggest isn't analysis but mapping whether the film fits these universes as though they are real.

Ruining maybe a bit strong but there is a definite pattern of closer and closer 'analysis' linked to increasing frustration, impossible to fulfil expectations, and diminishing returns.

Not even beginning to say I am immune from this myself!

ModoX 10 Jan 2017 08:06:32 3,480 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 12 years ago

I agree with cov.

ModoX 10 Jan 2017 08:15:21 3,480 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 12 years ago

Nah not really, only a little.

RE: Mad Max. I wouldn't characterise it as a subtle narrative, it's not really subtle and the key isn't so much the narrative. It's just a brilliant action film that is visually unique and in its characters and world building is progressive. Getting all that in one package is rare, which is why it got the praise.

Back to Star Wars etc, we're all discussing a Star Wars film on the forum of a video gaming website. We're definitely all major fucking nerds. I think we can probably all see the value and enjoyment to be derived from picking these worlds apart, and making from them creative spaces to insert new stories etc. But it's the job of the people making the main stuff not to let those concerns dominate the conversation, e.g. cov's point about the prequels.

In terms of arguments in a thread like this, people just have to be operating in the same framework. If one person doesn't like the fan service because logistically some character shouldn't have been there, someone else thinks it would just have been a better film without those distractions, and someone doesn't value the argument because they just wanted a fun Star Wars film, it's just different starting points.

Deleted user 10 January 2017 18:38:43

I don't see how Star Wars could've been made with toys in mind considering how it came to be. As most fans know none of the big studios wanted to back Lucas so he financed most of the film out of his own pocket.

So who would've been thinking about toys in that situation then? The big film execs? There were none. Lucas? He risked bankrupcy just making this film so he didn't have the luxury of even considering toys.

I'm sure toy companies were very quick indeed to jump on the band wagon once they noticed how popular SW was (including among kids) but before it was released? I don't think so.

spindizzy 10 Jan 2017 18:44:41 7,755 posts
Seen 4 weeks ago
Registered 17 years ago

Yeah, I think A New Hope is famously the film that kick-started the toy tie in ... no one had the faintest of ideas that you could make money that way, which is why they let Lucas have the rights.

Skirlasvoud 10 Jan 2017 18:53:37 4,039 posts
Seen 4 months ago
Registered 11 years ago

In fact, everyone was sure the first Star Wars movie was going to be a flop. At least, that's what all the SW documentaries told me.

A nerdy sci-fi saga with expensive props men in rubber suits? The British cast was rolling their eyes and were well paid to risk their careers on such a stinker. Lucas could keep the rights to such a disaster in the making.
Big part of why Lucas keeps picking at the originals to "suit his original vision" is because he was HEAVILY restricted by the studios on his first take. Execs felt they took a huge gamble on something they didn't know would work. Lucas had a dozen eyes looking over his shoulder, hissing, tut-tutting and making sure it was as risk free as possible and stuck to established rules of script, storytelling and casting at least.
You could argue it worked and saved the original trilogy from the sort of bat-shit crazy that Lucas brought us later on now that the man's idea proved golden. Nobody dared speak up anymore when he thought Jar-Jar might be a good idea. He proved them wrong once.

Total and utter surprise when the first SW became the hit it did. Nobody had expected the success it turned out to be, much less build a toy line around it ahead of time.

Edited by Skirlasvoud at 19:01:57 10-01-2017

Skirlasvoud 10 Jan 2017 19:15:58 4,039 posts
Seen 4 months ago
Registered 11 years ago

Just looked up my old documentary. All the original Star Wars had was an obscure comic book deal, 'cause everyone thought nerds was the only demographic the movie would ever appeal to.

https://youtu.be/Nw_VeZk_q0U?t=1h13m10s

Documentary itself is worth a watch too if you're enough into SW to post here for the dozenth time.

Psiloc 11 Jan 2017 14:28:47 6,366 posts
Seen 18 hours ago
Registered 14 years ago

Watched this over Christmas. Liked it, but it had a number of issues. I didn't think the characters were well developed first and foremost, and the level of fan service got to the point of distracting. C-3PO and R2-D2 for example was borderline ridiculous.

Mainly though I felt like I was constantly aware of the fact that it was a story that didn't need to be told. I think that's partly what defines the concept of a spin-off in fairness, but there was some sort of inevitability to the plot that made me feel disconnected.

I still have no idea what purpose the two Chinese guys served.

The CGI humans were seriously impressive but at the same time were still transparently CGI, and I feel sorry for anyone who was paying attention and thought they were convincing. To be honest I'd probably have been less distracted by lookalikes...

All that to one side I'd still say it was a decent film, and a decent Star Wars film is still good enough for me after the prequels. I liked Episode VII more, primarily because the characters were more three dimensional. But I'll still be buying the Blu-Ray and watching it about 50 times. In fact saying that it wouldn't surprise me if this is a film that gets better with repeated viewings.

mal 11 Jan 2017 16:50:46 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

Saw it today. I felt it had better defined characters than almost any previous SW film, because they almost all had their own motivations for doing what they were doing. And having recently watched three of the Hunger Games films, I was impressed how fleshed out and well rounded the female lead felt to me.

That's apart from the Donnie Yen and Fong Sai Yuk's mum, who I think were there for comic relief mainly - they certainly made me laugh a few times. And the stormtroopers and jedi pilots (hurrah, proper british actors!), which were obviously just cannon fodder.

The CGI people were very peculiar, and I was distracted by fake Peter Cushing flouncing about in a very un-Cushing way in the first scene with him. The other fake human at the very end fit the story explicitly in to the story in Star Wars (the first film), so I can forgive that. Even if that actor rarely looked that good even in the 70s. I didn't actually mind the other two old characters at all - it came at a good point in the story for me to remind me exactly what story was being told.

I dunno, it's funny how we can be affected by a film in two completely different ways. I found the characters in seven to be paper thin, perhaps somewhat because I've always watched the original trilogy in bits as I floated from room to room as a student. Seven felt like another series of sketches with a rough story tying them together. This felt much more thrilling to me, especially at the start with it being about spying and secret orders.

You-can-call-me-kal 11 Jan 2017 17:03:15 23,013 posts
Seen 22 hours ago
Registered 15 years ago

I liked, but didn�t love it. Yes, it had character development and motivation, but it was absolutely archetypical Seven Samurai stuff and I was fairly bored for the first couple of acts. I knew exactly where it was headed and I just wanted it to get there.

The final act though was great and I thoroughly enjoyed it, but at the same time I was very aware the whole time I was having my buttons pushed. It was pretty much every single thing every Star Wars fan could ever want to see, which was great and a bit cheap in equal measure.

In the end it was a fun ride, but I didn�t come away feeling like the series was enriched through this new addition.

disusedgenius 11 Jan 2017 17:46:10 10,677 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 14 years ago

I quite enjoyed the really tropey characters (i.e. the Asian guys), the ones I wasn't as fond of were the 'what should be simple characters but instead have some kind of complexity which is only available in other media' ones.

Comparing Krannic/Eyso-senior/Saw etc with, oh, I dunno, Tarkin or Jabba from the originals - They're all important characters but the new crowd somehow feel both over- and under-done. Such is the curse of the modern franchise blockbuster, mind.

Star Wars: Rogue One • Page 56