Sorcerer
Member
Sure, but probably nothing specifically tied to those novels.
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story |OT| They rebel - SPOILERS
- Thread starter Quick
- Start date
- Status
Sure, but probably nothing specifically tied to those novels.
WadiumArcadium
Member
Take that back you monster.
oh no what have you done
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
I didn't know Tarkin was CGI until after someone mentioned it. I simply thought they got a similar actor to play the role.
So I have to say that I thought the CGI was great.
So I have to say that I thought the CGI was great.
Did you watch a bad SD cam rip? He looks awful and so does Leia.I didn't know Tarkin was CGI until after someone mentioned it. I simply thought someone got a really similar actor to play the role.
So I have to say that I thought the CGI was great.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
They looked perfectly fine to me. Thank you.
alexanderftw
Banned
Leia I agree but Tarkin looks okay.
Seriously.
Neither movie has good or interesting characterization in my opinion. Saw Guerrara, conceptually, was very interesting and could have been quite fresh in a traditionally black and white SW universe. I also thought Cassian had a lot of potential for unexplored depth and moral ambiguity. None of the characters in TFA develop beyond their archetypes, which I guess is fine in space opera but not very satisfying psychologically
Monocle
Member
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
Yea, I lose interest in engaging with people who make exaggerated claims. I'm only going to keep it short and simple from now on. I don't need to explain that I thought the CGI looked perfectly fine to me.
Captain Zyrain
Member
The first time I saw it in theaters I thought it was just a lookalike/makeup.
I knew the actor was dead, of course, so I realized it wasn't him.
I didn't realize till afterwards it was CGI.
The 2nd time, having seen the movie before, I spent more time scrutinizing the CGI and yeah, could tell it was fake and some things seemed off, but that was with me focusing entirely on that aspect and ignoring the rest of the scene.
I guess they're not at "full immersion" level yet, but it worked great for my first pass at the movie, so I consider it a success.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I mean, a book literally contains pages and pages of exposition explaining things. It is what you want. A movie can contain people saying things to other people explaining things. In a movie, too much exposition can get boring. Especially with an ensemble cast, how much backstory do you need for each character? Rogue One is Jyn's story.
Jyn is literally Rey. Fatherless, abandoned, unmoored and finds a cause to fight for.
Jyn's character is super boring and surface
brandonh83
Banned
Is this a fucking joke? You are seriously arguing that Naughty Dog, a video game company founded in 1984 with this game:
Has more experience than fucking Industrial Light and Magic, who a year after Naughty Dog was founded created the first fully CGI character ever:
This is so hilariously absurd I do not even know what to say. You know who ILM is right? Holy shit.
SomewhatGroovy
Banned
I disagree. I've known that they would get the plans going on 37 years now.
Lifejumper
Member
Well.. it is primarily a video gaming forum.
We knew Apollo 13 landed successfully and the Titanic was doomed yet those events still had tension, drama and power on film. It's all in the execution
SomewhatGroovy
Banned
True and that movie was about the astronauts and not the expedition, per se. Granted the same holds true here. I guess I just didn't care about the characters.Also, I had never wanted to see a blind man die so fast in a movie before.
Haha. The characters aren't great I agree. The movie got worse for me with some distance from the hype to be honest
Man, every time I think I heard all the dumb stuff there is to say on the new star wars movies, there's always something new.
It's not even accurate on the broad level it's operating at. Jyn wasn't abandoned, she had her mother killed and her father kidnapped. Meanwhile Rey's problem was that she was overly moored rather than unmoored.
I noticed it instantly and it took me out of the movie. I wish I didn't, but I did.
Yes, awful is the right word. If everyone was CGI it wouldn't be such an issue, but he alone just stood out like a sore thumb.
Leia was just the icing on the cake, but by then the movie was over anyway.
Yes, awful is the right word. If everyone was CGI it wouldn't be such an issue, but he alone just stood out like a sore thumb.
Leia was just the icing on the cake, but by then the movie was over anyway.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It really isn't tho
brandonh83
Banned
We're simply not to the point where CG humans and live actors should share the same screen space. It doesn't matter how good the CG is technically. It was technically fantastic CG work.
SomewhatGroovy
Banned
"Hey, people; I'll tell you what you can or can't like."
brandonh83
Banned
Well, he's right. I mean, it isn't awful CG. It's fantastic CG. The problem people have is that it's not quite good enough to be in the same frame as other live actors. That difference is what makes it jarring for some. I thought it was incredibly jarring myself. So he's right that it's not awful CG, I mean I don't even find that debatable. What is debatable is how it looks in a live action space with live actors.
Some people can. I can't. I didn't notice at all on my first viewing and neither did many people. And even when I knew what to look for, it's mostly just the mouths that gave it away. If I didn't specifically concentrate on him, I don't think he's out of place at all.
Fascinating, but I'm also extremely sensitive to bad framerates and frametimes in games. Maybe this has something to do with it. Just how I'm wired.
SomewhatGroovy
Banned
Right and it's obvious that when people have criticized it, they do so in context to its effectiveness in the scene they appear in on account of the jarring effect you speak of. It was painfully obvious he wasn't criticizing the CG in and of itself. The semantics are just too much and sometimes pushed for the sake of argument.
She felt abandoned by her dad and Saw. She says as much to Cassian when she reflects on how she's not accustomed to people sticking around. Her character motivation is all over the place and underdeveloped. She and Rey have a lot of surface similarities. It'd be a pleasant change if SW would move away from the familial father-son/father-daughter/abandoned kids conceit going forward.
I'm sensitive to bad framerates and the like but the CGI Tarkin didn't bother me at all in Rogue One. Could be that i liked the film and the scenes too much to be bothered by imperfections. (Leia did bother me though, and that face shot was unnecessary anyway.)
brandonh83
Banned
Yeah. Personally I think the movie would've worked just fine without it. Tarkin could've been referenced in a line or two, and I actually think the last scene with Leia would've been more effective if we only saw her from the back from the dude's POV that went to the room she was in. Like some kind of wide shot where the camera doesn't deliberately move up to her face even. It just felt like they were trying to show off at that point instead of trying to make it work or look good in context and that's kind of the problem I had with it.
Also, at the beginning of ANH, they kind of keep her face concealed for that reveal shot where she pulls back her hood, but at the end of Rogue One they just deliberately show her face. It feels weird. Like instead of doing that CG work on Leia, just have another "concealed" shot of her instead. It'd have been much easier and faithful to the story I think.
BrokenFiction
Member
I doubt I'll get anyone to agree, but I think if they'd have let Stephen Stanton do Tarkin's voice (he does him in Clone Wars and on Rebels), it would have felt more right to me. I could have forgave the CGI flaws a bit more.
SomewhatGroovy
Banned
I like your thoughts on Leia and think that would have been an interesting idea to pursue now that you brought it up. Would have added to her majestic presence more by possibly just teasing her presence rather than make it a point to be known. Interesting.
Complaints aside for how Tarkin looked, one of the positive things I enjoyed with this film, and what I felt gave some of the story a semblance of depth, was the office politics that transpired between he and Orson. I hope we see a bit more of that betweem Kylo Ren and whatever that dude's name was in the next mainline film. Conflict within a party of badguys is always fun.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
No, it wasn't. Still isn't.
"painfully" obvious
OK.
I mean, I also had problems with how it was used in the film, and was one of the first on this board to point out how and why the effect didn't quite work they way they probably wanted it to.
But that isn't the same as flat out calling the work "awful." It's not awful.
You can complain about semantics, and I'll point out hyperbolic bullshit.
edit: "Painfully" hyperbolic bullshit, that is.
It was OK.
The final action scene was well executed, but pretty much every character was uninteresting. Jyn naturally was the one with the most development, but it was very rushed. Some other weird things with the characters like:
The CGI was very distracting. I don't think the technology is there yet at all.
The final action scene was well executed, but pretty much every character was uninteresting. Jyn naturally was the one with the most development, but it was very rushed. Some other weird things with the characters like:
- why did Forrest Whitaker just give up?
- it was said that Riz Ahmed's character would have lost his mind after that weird slug thing read his mind, but he seemed alright after they escape from the first planet. Did the movie just forget about that?
The CGI was very distracting. I don't think the technology is there yet at all.
brandonh83
Banned
Yeah, I didn't think Tarkin worked visually either but at least he had actual story presence, which I think overrides my critical viewpoints on the visual execution. With Leia it was just too deliberate and kind of there to be there, like let's wow everyone with a Leia front and center appearance. I would have preferred something a lot more subtle, especially again considering that it would have flowed a lot better with her taking her hood off in ANH. Now when you watch Rogue One and see her face at the end, there's no real reason for her to have a reveal shot like that anymore.
I also fully admit this is the cornerstone of nitpickery, but I still find it a valid point, at least for me personally. Like the intro of ANH tries to make Leia's character a bit mysterious at the beginning when she's trying to get R2 away, leading to her removing the hood. But Rogue One ends with a front and center shot of her face. It just doesn't gel to me from a storytelling perspective and felt a bit indulgent.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
The series is full of things like that. ROTS spoils the Anakin reveal in ESB. ANH SE spoils the Jabba reveal in ROTJ, etc.
brandonh83
Banned
I think with the Anakin reveal, it simply makes it something different. Like instead of it being about the surprise that he's Vader, it kinda turns into "I wonder when Luke will find out." With the Leia thing, you have them showing her face in the final moments leading up to A New Hope, in which that begins with them trying to keep Leia concealed until she removes the hood.
The problem with that argument, for me, is that Rogue One was never going to work as 'the movie that came before ANH'. It just can't - one movie was always clearly going to look like it was made in 2016, the other in 1977. And Rogue One was made with that context in mind. There's no way to really see R1 as the precursor to New Hope. There are years of Star Wars history informing R1 that weren't there in New Hope. Narratively they take place after each other, conceptually they never can - the creators know it, and the audience does too. It informs everything you see in R1, including that moment - which is why that moment plays out like it does.
Ignoring the quality of the CG for a sec, the story reveal in that moment actually works for the story they're trying to tell. For me, of course, obviously not for you and that's fine. I see it as a story being told out of chronological order, not a story where gaps are being filled to make one continuing chronological story. There's a difference.
All just my opinion, I do see your point though.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll