 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 20, 2016 - 10:14 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
It's just an opinion. Whether it's true or not depends on what you are looking for.  On its own merits I had problems with the film. Didn't hate it, it's certainly watchable, but it didn't work for me.
I still can't get over some hypocritical Star Wars fanboys who criticized Lucas' prequels for heavy CGI usage, went batty applauding Abrams' practical-favored approach, and are now looking the other way over entire (transparently animated) characters reanimated from the past with unconvincing CGI for this movie.
To a degree, I think SW fans -- of which I'm one, admittedly -- will like anything and everything with the brand slapped on it, and we'll see this going forward even more so, much like the Marvel fans who at times can't acknowledge shortcomings in that product.
For me, I just don't feel like giving any money to Disney right now. Whenever a movie does boxoffice like this these days, I just feel like cinema goers are being lemmings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 20, 2016 - 3:25 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
jgoldader
(Member)
|
I just got back from watching Rogue One with the kids. The dialogue was terrible and the acting lackluster except for Krennic (you actually liked Whittaker?!? He phoned that in!). Mads was wasted with awful dialogue. The CGI of characters from Ep 4 looked like video game cut scent animation. You can really tell by the facial muscle movement on Krennic vs. the CGI character where only the lower half of the face moved. The film was saved by the long-awaited return of a fan fav from the original trilogy (you know who I mean). Those scenes on the lava planet and at the end---well, as George Takei would say, "Oh, MY!" I had a huge grin, and here I am almost 50. The basic story in the second half was fine, but the main problem with the movie is that the first half was pretty much wasted; the attempt to assemble The Dirty Dozen really didn't work. I liked the robot and Donnie Yen's character, and, oddly enough, what I guess were clones(?) who looked like Martin Freeman with mustache. But I didn't "care" about any of the other Rebels. Given that he had only 4 weeks, Giaccino's score was certainly passable; at times, it really sounded like Williams' work on Ep 4. I bought the CD today and look forward to listening to it. I'd give it about 3/5, and it's worth seeing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 21, 2016 - 8:33 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Aidabaida
(Member)
|
Andy, I think the biggest mistake you made in your review was saying Rogue One was "strictly for aging fans". In fact, all the "aging" fans seem to hate it. This movie is being embraced by the younger teen demographic.
All the negative comments I've seen about Rogue One are coming from people feeling it "betrayed" the Star Wars they love, or turned Star Wars into a "generic action movie", whereas all the positives are coming from the 13-30 demographic, who are being drawn back into Star Wars (or introduced for the first time), by a rousing adventure.
I'm under 18, so I'd know when I say almost all my peers despise the original trilogy. They call it dated, weird or dumb. Even embarrassing. They say, "Yeah, I watched it, but my parents made me." Rogue One is attracting them! Making Star Wars new and real for this generation.
While you say it is designed for "aging fans" (such as yourself?) it is in fact, the aging fans who dislike it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 21, 2016 - 9:43 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
I still can't get over some hypocritical Star Wars fanboys who criticized Lucas' prequels for heavy CGI usage, went batty applauding Abrams' practical-favored approach, and are now looking the other way over entire (transparently animated) characters reanimated from the past with unconvincing CGI for this movie.
I find it a little superficial that so many use the existence of CGI as some sort of line in the sand dividing quality from hackery. (Abrams savvily exploited this prejudice heavily in promotional materials for "The Force Awakens," despite the significant amount of CGI imagery in the film.) Of course, there's plenty of terrible CGI around, and plenty of "live action" films that distressingly seem to be nothing but, to the point where it seems to be enough just if some effects are practical. But even "Jackie" makes considerable use of CGI – it's just a tool, to be used for good or ill. For my taste, too many feign easy sophistication by sneering at the mere existence of CGI.
As for the film, I enjoyed it well enough, but the lack of any honestly charismatic actor to anchor the rogues' gallery (sorry) of freedom fighters was a real problem, and one that no amount of reshoots could overcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
