Star Wars Rogue One thread with Spoilers

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by Lanny's Moustache

Evade the question, then evade again and act like a child when called out for it. You'd make a good POTUS.

If you have nothing else to say but "CGI BAD. ME SMART!" then perhaps you should just keep your limited thinking abilities to yourself.

Again, you haven't asked a question.

If the question is: "Did you think Mad Max: Fury Road was one of the best movies of the year last year?" -- yes, I did. It was an exciting action thrill-ride with excellent cinematography, music, and yes, special effects. In fact, the video that you posted cites it as a movie that uses digital effects very well, which I was very much aware of.

I've never once stated (nor has anyone else here) that I think all CGI is bad -- in fact, I think a lot of the work in Rogue One was incredible, particularly the Death Star firing scenes and the space battles. I have pointed out that I felt ONE particular effect (Tarkin) was not executed very well. No one is at all sure which crusade you seem to be going on, except to trumpet the prequels as not terrible? But you say it yourself in your own post:

What makes a movie great is it's story, it's characters, it's emotion.

All of which the Star Wars prequels utterly failed at, regardless of how good or bad their special effects were.

[Lanny's Moustache]

Originally Posted by photon

Asking for copies of copyrighted material isn't something I see asked all the time, nor have I seen moderators reward people for those many requests.

If you see people requesting illegal copies of copyrighted material report the post.

Not sure what "lesson" you're referring to, other than the lesson that requesting copyrighted material should get your post edited.

EDIT: And I'll mention it again, you need to bring your intensity level down a few notches; discuss the topic with a person. Rants are nice in small quantities, but not as the only mode of response on a topic.

Not the place to discuss board policy, but since you chose to go that route I asked for "copyrighted material" the same as people all the time ask AC or anyone else capable to post clips and gifs or the same sort of copyrighted material. Now if you want to get into the moral discussion that is requesting portions of said material vs simply asking for thw whole thing, perhaps you should have sent a PM or begun a new thread. At the end of the day a 10 second gif, a compilation video or a full game is all covered by the same copyright.

I'll take the rest of your "advice" when you back up your own defending of Donald Trump-like activity that you call out multiple times a day over in that thread. Pot/kettle and all that.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Lanny's Moustache

Not the place to discuss board policy, but since you chose to go that route

I didn't chose to, you're the one who raised it.

Originally Posted by Lanny's Moustache

I asked for "copyrighted material" the same as people all the time ask AC or anyone else capable to post clips and gifs or the same sort of copyrighted material.

A small portion is not the same as requesting a copy of an entire thing. Small portions of newspaper articles can be copied for the purposes of facilitating discussion, but not the entire contents, for example.

Just because you view the two as identical doesn't mean everyone does; basing your backhanded accusation on this equivalence without checking to see if that's how we view it makes your interpretation of our actions incorrect.

Originally Posted by Lanny's Moustache

perhaps you should have sent a PM or begun a new thread.

That's my line. You didn't send a PM about it but instead brought it up here. If we'd known you felt wronged by the editing of your post requesting copyrighted material we would have replied to your PM explaining it.

Originally Posted by Lanny's Moustache

I'll take the rest of your "advice" when you back up your own defending of Donald Trump-like activity that you call out multiple times a day over in that thread. Pot/kettle and all that.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.. Regardless, I'm trying to help you. You already have the attention of the moderation team (not in a positive way). I'm trying to give you feedback for the kind of things that aren't wanted and how to fit in better as I like having new and different people posting rather than seeing people get themselves banned.

[Lanny's Moustache]

Originally Posted by photon

I didn't chose to, you're the one who raised it.



A small portion is not the same as requesting a copy of an entire thing. Small portions of newspaper articles can be copied for the purposes of facilitating discussion, but not the entire contents, for example.

Just because you view the two as identical doesn't mean everyone does; basing your backhanded accusation on this equivalence without checking to see if that's how we view it makes your interpretation of our actions incorrect.



That's my line. You didn't send a PM about it but instead brought it up here. If we'd known you felt wronged by the editing of your post requesting copyrighted material we would have replied to your PM explaining it.



I'm not sure what you're trying to say.. Regardless, I'm trying to help you. You already have the attention of the moderation team (not in a positive way). I'm trying to give you feedback for the kind of things that aren't wanted and how to fit in better as I like having new and different people posting rather than seeing people get themselves banned.

No, you brought up all the details. I defended the baseless accusations that I am a previously banned poster. I didn't air your dirty laundry for all to see and you didn't bother to respond to my personal defense with a PM but instead made all the details public for everyone, completely off topic to the thread and without addressing why I made the minimal statement I did in the first place.

But I get it, full games are off limits. Parts of games, that's fair so long as you or what ever mod feel like it is. Actual copyright law (in whole or in part) is irrelevant. As stated, lesson learned. I moved on but you felt compelled to drag everything out into the open rather than address the posters pulling out their pitchforks and torches to go on an imaginary witch hunt.

As for the last, if you fail to see how defending the type of internet hate spewing that you mock elsewhere then I can't help you. What's bad for Donald Trump is A-OK elsewhere this board. Understood.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

Good grief dude. They did a crappy job on Tarkin and it was brutally obvious it was a CGI job from the second he turned around. Cut scenes in video games look better than that. Just because I said that looked bad (which it does) is not a blanket statement that all CGI ever is bad. Get a grip.

And the prequels are terrible films by any reasonable objective or subjective measure, which is why they get the level of hate thrown at them they do.

My Wife is not a star wars fan. We saw the picture on Christmas, she had no idea he was even CGI until I explained it to her.

We see what we want to see.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by MattyC

You're confusing ANH with Ep. I.

Anakin finds him in scrap and builds him. Uncle Owen buys him and R2D2 from Jawas after they crash on Tatooine.

Which is, if people really want to complain, a huge coincidence!!

[photon]

Originally Posted by Lanny's Moustache

No, you brought up all the details.

In response to your passive complaint about your post being edited. If you'd posted "I signed up to ask a question." and kept the complaint out of it there'd have been no response. Nothing about the editing of the post is relevant to you saying you're a returning poster or not.

If the moderation team's actions are questioned publicly, I may choose to explain them publicly.

Originally Posted by Lanny's Moustache

address the posters pulling out their pitchforks and torches to go on an imaginary witch hunt.

Yeah well even Batman can't do everything in one night. You did jump in being confrontational so of course people are going to be disposed to respond in kind, and you look like a returning poster (which doesn't mean you are as looks can be deceiving), someone wondering if you are a returnee is hardly a witch hunt.

Originally Posted by Lanny's Moustache

As for the last, if you fail to see how defending the type of internet hate spewing

I don't think that the criticism of certain special effects in a Star Wars movie constitutes hate spewing though.

Anyway if you have any further questions or concerns about this you can PM the Moderator account, if you see any posts that you think deserve moderator attention you can report the post.

[photon]

On topic, I rewatched Civil War last night and there's one part where Tony's talking in front of an audience at MIT and there's a scene that's supposed to be a young Tony talking with his parents. It's a similar kind of thing as it's a digital effect intended to look human, but IMO is even worse than Tarkin.

X-Men tried the same thing with the Professor and Magneto. And Hank Pym in Ant-Man.

Tarkin was better than those IMO.

[Harry Lime]

Good lord, CP just logged me out after I wrote an epic review that specifically hit points not mentioned in here as of yet. Post lost. Man are you guys missing out on some brilliant &*^# there.

Here are a couple that I'm going to lay down in short form. The original bits, I'm not going to try to repeat, these are just responding to a couple of thoughts of others in the thread.

No filmmaker/writer/actor was to create faceless characters. War movie or not, lack of character development is a big fail.

I think cannon was supposed to be the movies alone, were they not? Any books/comics/series are out of bounds. New characters require in story back story or development.

Zatoichi and Sabutai were the most charismatic characters in the show. Saved it. Cassian had no charisma and it sucked the life out of everything.

No big plot holes, tight scriptwriting. Makes me think that problems with pacing/editing/story can be laid at the feet of the director/(producer?).

[CaptainCrunch]

On your cannon point your wrong. They had lots of links to both the Clone Wars and Rebels series, those are considered canon as well as any of the books released post Disney purchase that encompassed the periods of time between TCW and ANH.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

Rogue One might have been a "better" movie in the critical sense, and more in keeping with the tone of the Star Wars franchise, but I vastly preferred the characters in TFA and was far more entertained by it.

R1 is only "better" in the critical sense if the critic is one of those "more serious = better" types.

Making an adventure film that's fun for all ages is a LOT harder than making an average war film.

TFA is not a superb film and admittedly it feels a bit derivative within the Star Wars saga, so it's easy to see why some liked R1 better. Still, TFA is technically clearly the better film, with better directing, editing, music, acting and pretty much everything really. Ridley especially just blows Jones out of the water.

With TFA it kind of comes down to how you feel about "soft reboots", which is what TFA pretty clearly is. It's a film that's somewhere in between a remake of ANH and a sequel.

(R1 was apparently a pretty rushed film that changed a lot during the production, and it really shows in the general quality of the final product. So for that reason I wouldn't put it's problems too hard on the shoulders of the people who made it.)

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Itse

R1 is only "better" in the critical sense if the critic is one of those "more serious = better" types.

People also differ on how much originality they want in a movie. It's looking like the core films in the Star Wars franchise will take the James Bond approach, and it will be mandatory to include 6 key elements and 4 of 6 secondary elements in every movie. The standalone movies like Rogue One will be allowed to break from the template, and I expect I'll prefer them on that basis.

Originally Posted by Itse

Making an adventure film that's fun for all ages is a LOT harder than making an average war film.

True. My kids didn't especially like Rogue One. But then, they didn't especially like The Force Awakens either - even though it's on Netflix, they haven't asked to see it again after watching it in the theatre at release. A couple of my buddies have made the same observation, that their kids aren't interested in the recent Star Wars movies. I wonder if 8-12 year olds are even the core market for the movies anymore.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by photon

On topic, I rewatched Civil War last night and there's one part where Tony's talking in front of an audience at MIT and there's a scene that's supposed to be a young Tony talking with his parents.

Marvel may have been going for a 'perfect' young Tony, but really that was a hologram being projected pretty much from his mind with "today's" technology. Anything even half as good as those graphics happening in real time and 3D would be completely amazing right now. So it should get a pass.

The others are fair points as they are just suppose to be younger versions.

[SportsJunky]

I really like this movie. Had a different 'vibe' than what I'm used to from a Star Wars movie. The casting was fine. I loved how it lined up with ANH. The last half of the movie was stronger than the first imo. I actually nodded off for a few minutes in the first half. The cgi wasn't good or bad imo. It was a tool to advance the story. I'm fine with that.

3.5/5

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Marvel may have been going for a 'perfect' young Tony, but really that was a hologram being projected pretty much from his mind with "today's" technology. Anything even half as good as those graphics happening in real time and 3D would be completely amazing right now. So it should get a pass.

For me an added reason why that scene looked wrong was that I actually remember what RDJ looked like at that age, and that wasn't quite it. (Of course it wasn't technically young RDJ but young Tony Stark, so maybe that was somewhat intentional?)

I wonder if the ease with which some people pick up CGI is connected to how much they play games with high-end CG characters?

Or maybe it's just how people look at films. I tend to be pretty analytical, so I notice the technical things too. It's a lot of extra pleasure when the way something is done is really cool, but a bit of a curse when you're trying to enjoy a film which isn't that good technically.

[GGG]

So just saw it finally.

I really like what they did with the movie. They created a war movie set in the star wars universe. Disney has become very good at this concept. Ant-Man was a Marvel universe heist movie. Civil War was a political thriller. The Staw Wars main story have been fantasy epics. Now with the stories we get a war movie, and what looks to be a buddy movie in the Han Solo movie.

I didn't hear about the CGI tarkin Leia going in and basicly wondered how they did Tarkin and it wasnt distracting. The Leia one I did find distracting because I am much more familiar with how Leia should look. I do think it was worth doing these characters like this as opposed to recasting like Mon Montha.

My only complaint is the RetConning of the defect in the Death Star. Even if it perfectly fits in with both explaining how they found the defect within hours of getting the plans and why you would build a Death Star with such a weakness. It felt really shoehorned in that it became less believable.

Solid addition to the universe and I'm looking forward to the Han and Chewie buddy road trip movie.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by GGG

So just saw it finally.

I really like what they did with the movie. They created a war movie set in the star wars universe. Disney has become very good at this concept. Ant-Man was a Marvel universe heist movie. Civil War was a political thriller. The Staw Wars main story have been fantasy epics. Now with the stories we get a war movie, and what looks to be a buddy movie in the Han Solo movie.

I didn't hear about the CGI tarkin Leia going in and basicly wondered how they did Tarkin and it was distracting. The Leia one I did find distracting because I am much more familiar with how Leia should look. I do think it was worth doing these characters like this as opposed to recasting like Mon Montha.

My only complaint is the RetConning of the defect in the Death Star. Even if it perfectly fits in with both explaining how they found the defect within hours of getting the plans and why you would build a Death Star with such a weakness. It felt really shoehorned in that it became less believable.

Solid addition to the universe and I'm looking forward to the Han and Chewie buddy road trip movie.

Chewie better rip someone's arms off in the Han and Chewie movie.

Been waiting since 'Nam to see that.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I've now seen this twice, both times in IMAX 3D. This time I was actually looking to try to nitpick CGI Tarkin and Leia. Tarkin's mouth gives it away when he's speaking, it has that distinct sort of smooth movement that demonstrates CGI animations. Leia is only on screen for a few seconds, but frankly, that's about as perfect as it gets.

Either way, even when I was looking for the flaws, neither bothered me at all. And it's not like my eyesight is poor or anything. Based on how polarized the reactions are here, I suspect that different people have different capacities for suspension of disbelief or things that stand out to them because it really doesn't throw me off at all.

My brother was there and he said that Tarkin did stick out to him and that the technology wasn't quite there, so mileage obviously varies with the viewer.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Lanny's Moustache

No, you brought up all the details. I defended the baseless accusations that I am a previously banned poster. I didn't air your dirty laundry for all to see and you didn't bother to respond to my personal defense with a PM but instead made all the details public for everyone, completely off topic to the thread and without addressing why I made the minimal statement I did in the first place.

But I get it, full games are off limits. Parts of games, that's fair so long as you or what ever mod feel like it is. Actual copyright law (in whole or in part) is irrelevant. As stated, lesson learned. I moved on but you felt compelled to drag everything out into the open rather than address the posters pulling out their pitchforks and torches to go on an imaginary witch hunt.

As for the last, if you fail to see how defending the type of internet hate spewing that you mock elsewhere then I can't help you. What's bad for Donald Trump is A-OK elsewhere this board. Understood.

I love that you and your hate got banned

[Kavvy]

nm