Leia does not see or meet daddy Vader at the end of ROGUE ONE, only that the bigger rebel ship is being attacked by Imperial forces, so they have to flee. So the lie DOES make sense, as a last (albeit desperate) attempt to talk her way out the situation.
She and her ship were in the middle of the attack on the Empire stronghold. Then tried to slip away. So no, her excuse makes no sense. What was a princess doing there to begin with? Keep in mind the Rebel leaders didn't approve of the attack. They only showed up because the stupid Rogue One clan ignored orders and forced the Rebels to send reinforcements. Still no explanation why Princess Leia would be anywhere near that battle.
I prerer the use of the relative pronoun, and all that that entails. Actually, I would probably use "which" there, instead of the repetition of the word "that", but "that" still sounds (and reads) fine to me. Come to think of it, the omission of the relative pronoun sounds clumsier than the alternatives. "And all that entails." And all that entails what?
And on a completely different note, what a joy to see the great Peter Cushing on the big screen again. I've read that some people find it creepy and unethical. I on the other hand believe that it's a great tribute to a wonderful actor and person, and it might even get some youngsters curious about who Cushing really was, and seek out his old films.
Thanks for the tip. It's a holdover from Norwegian grammar.
You're kidding me! If that's the case, then our two languages ain't so different. At the end of the day, I think it's one of those qualitative and quantitative thingies we can subjectively opt for or not. In fact, this double qualifying of certain words doesn't have any hard and fast rules (at least, not in my limited world view). Indeed, there may be situations when 'doubling up' would be a deliberate choice for 'local' emphatic highlighting. Your application is completely sufficient - I thought it was worth pointing out the alternative. English, being the complex language it actually is, leaves me fumbling for a specific example of such an application at this moment.
Edit: you beat me to it, Graham. Now we can make future reference what we mean by Rogue One "to be or not to be" existentialism outside of this thread.
And on a completely different note, what a joy to see the great Peter Cushing on the big screen again. I've read that some people find it creepy and unethical. I on the other hand believe that it's a great tribute to a wonderful actor and person, and it might even get some youngsters curious about who Cushing really was, and seek out his old films.
They will probably think he was a completely made up CGI character and not a real person.
There was a review of the film in today's paper, which mentioned "the great Peter Cushing, who died in 1944". I asked my wife to have a look at that sentence and find the mistake, and she said, "Ah, it should say, "the great Peter Cushing, who was born in 1844". And she was being serious. I love my gal!
The only thing that stood out to me was when they were fighting the giant walkers towards the end of the movie the rebel ships just shot them down where in I think Episode 5 they had to use the strings to wrap around the feet to knock them down.
She and her ship were in the middle of the attack on the Empire stronghold. Then tried to slip away. So no, her excuse makes no sense. What was a princess doing there to begin with? Keep in mind the Rebel leaders didn't approve of the attack. They only showed up because the stupid Rogue One clan ignored orders and forced the Rebels to send reinforcements. Still no explanation why Princess Leia would be anywhere near that battle.
Her excuse makes sense because she had no idea Vader was present at the battle. If she had seen him or met him, it would have been different, of course. Why was she there? Well, why not? She sympathizes with the rebel cause, and I'm sure she's been mocking about in space (probably with 'step daddy' Bail Organa's blessing), fighting their cause for some time.
She looks like a waxworks figure. Did it look better in motion? Did Cushing fare any better?
Just saw news on how much this thing made this weekend. The rat has to be happy.
Not better in motion. In fact it looked worse when the CGI characters moved or spoke. Leia was only on screen for seconds. Grand Moff Tarkin had a lot of minutes, and interacted with real actors.
This is what frustrates me. If these characters were in a no name film not beloved by rapid fans, it would've been panned. Since they eat up anything given to them there's no incentive for the studios to do better.
Leia's "lie" makes no sense in context of what happens in Rogue One. She was there, Darth tried to board her ship. It's the worst lie in diplomatic history and makes her look like an idiot.
But Solium, doesn't she then look like an idiot at the beginning of "A New Hope" too, coming out of hyperspace above Tatooine of all places (where she's going to meet Obi-Wan Kenobi), if her ruse is "a diplomatic mission to Alderaan"? I think you're over-analyizing it because you didn't like the movie. She was simply being defiant and evasive with her enemy....
If that's the case, then our two languages ain't so different. At the end of the day, I think it's one of those qualitative and quantitative thingies we can subjectively opt for or not. In fact, this double qualifying of certain words doesn't have any hard and fast rules (at least, not in my limited world view). Indeed, there may be situations when 'doubling up' would be a deliberate choice for 'local' emphatic highlighting. Your application is completely sufficient - I thought it was worth pointing out the alternative. English, being the complex language it actually is, leaves me fumbling for a specific example of such an application at this moment. 
