Rogue One (Gareth Edwards, 2016)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
djproject
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:41 pm
Location: Framingham, MA
Contact:

Re: Star Wars

#51 Post by djproject » Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:53 am

Honestly - and I've read both articles - I do not see this as a repeat of what happened here (no matter how they try to make it seem like it is).

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Star Wars

#52 Post by colinr0380 » Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:03 pm

I'd be slightly disappointed now if it doesn't end up as an Exorcist: The Beginning / Dominion: The Prequel To Exorcist situation!

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars

#53 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:10 pm

With CGI costs, I imagine it wouldn't be economically feasible. The story the studio is sticking with-- that they liked a belatedly rewritten/doctored version of the script so much they decided to go back and change/add-in stuff-- is an intriguing excuse, since it doesn't make anyone look good (studio admits to okaying a bad script, &c), so there may be some truth in it beyond the damage control, or equally likely, it's a clever gambit to reframe the convo!

User avatar
solaris72
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:03 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Star Wars

#54 Post by solaris72 » Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:00 pm

Wonder if they'll push it back. May 2017 would give them something to release for the 40th anniversary.

User avatar
Trees
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: Star Wars

#55 Post by Trees » Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:20 pm

Lots of rumors that a significant portion of reshooting might be used to add more Vader to the film. I think when you remove "The Force" from Star Wars, you run the risk of the film literally lacking magic. Perhaps adding more Vader not only mitigates that issue, but increases the nostalgia factor and "star power", and strengthens links to Ep 4.

User avatar
djproject
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:41 pm
Location: Framingham, MA
Contact:

Re: Star Wars

#56 Post by djproject » Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:41 pm

solaris72 wrote:Wonder if they'll push it back. May 2017 would give them something to release for the 40th anniversary.
Considering this is going to happen (finally =] )

User avatar
djproject
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:41 pm
Location: Framingham, MA
Contact:

Re: Star Wars

#57 Post by djproject » Sun Jun 05, 2016 3:10 pm

And now it gets even more complicated (life imitates art, I guess)

Tony Gilroy, not Christopher McQuarrie, is working on the 'Rogue One' reshoots

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars

#58 Post by domino harvey » Sun Jun 05, 2016 3:47 pm

At least everyone they're bringing in is talented-- I mean, so far. God knows how many more cooks Disney is planning to enlist between now and December

User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Star Wars

#59 Post by Black Hat » Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:51 am

What on earth is 'four quadrant appeal'?

User avatar
RossyG
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:50 pm

Re: Star Wars

#60 Post by RossyG » Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:45 am

It's an example of the sort of ridiculous jargon marketing and media people use.

User avatar
der_Artur
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 2:13 am
Location: freedomcage

Re: Star Wars

#61 Post by der_Artur » Wed Jun 08, 2016 8:03 am

Black Hat wrote:What on earth is 'four quadrant appeal'?
A movie appealing to males and females both younger and older than 25: https://screencraft.org/2013/11/22/four ... -elements/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Star Wars

#62 Post by movielocke » Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:10 am

If I were to guess the problem is the performances Edwards got were not good reads of the script and the edit came out pear shaped, a runofthemill Hollywood blockbuster all technical splosions and no heart, that made everyone lose confidence in the script and the director but they have known about this since seeing the dailys last year and subsequently hiring Gilroy. Since it takes months of planning to logistically schedule a six week shoot of this magnitude this has been in the works since Feb or march. Once the contractual obligation was met to allow Edwards his first cut they pulled the trigger on what we are now seeing executed.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars

#63 Post by domino harvey » Wed Jul 06, 2016 1:58 pm


User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars

#64 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jul 15, 2016 1:37 pm


User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars

#65 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:08 pm

And the first poster

Image

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Star Wars

#66 Post by Zot! » Fri Jul 15, 2016 4:45 pm

OH MY GOD! Is that serious? That is fucking hideous! Carnival cruise meets apocalypse now......in space! Also ANOTHER DEATHSTAR!

User avatar
carmilla mircalla
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:47 pm

Re: Star Wars

#67 Post by carmilla mircalla » Fri Jul 15, 2016 4:51 pm

Yep it's legit. I laughed pretty damn hard when I saw it.

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Star Wars

#68 Post by Zot! » Fri Jul 15, 2016 4:54 pm

It's almost as if they read all the internet complaining about how ridiculous it is that the bad guys keep building death stars, and just wanted to fuck with them.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars

#69 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jul 15, 2016 4:56 pm

Rogue One takes place before the original Star Wars trilogy

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Star Wars

#70 Post by Zot! » Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:08 pm

It's not like they were contractually obligated to include the Death Star regardless of the timeline....or maybe they were.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars

#71 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:09 pm

The movie is about a group of Rebels who get together to steal the plans for the Death Star

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Star Wars

#72 Post by cdnchris » Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:16 pm

It was mentioned late in the original Star Wars how many of the squad died trying to get the plans for the Death Star to the rebels. So don't expect everyone to make it at the end I guess...

User avatar
HitchcockLang
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 1:43 pm

Re: Star Wars

#73 Post by HitchcockLang » Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:24 pm

cdnchris wrote:It was mentioned late in the original Star Wars how many of the squad died trying to get the plans for the Death Star to the rebels. So don't expect everyone to make it at the end I guess...
Unless I'm mistaken, I think you're thinking of the "many Bothans gave their lives for this information" line from Return of the Jedi which pertains to the intel gathered to destroy the second Deathstar so it doesn't really relate to Rogue One at all.

Easy mistake to make though since the entire franchise just keeps repeating itself.

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Star Wars

#74 Post by Zot! » Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:26 pm

domino harvey wrote:The movie is about a group of Spring Breakers who get together to steal the plans for the Death Star
FYP

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Star Wars

#75 Post by cdnchris » Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:30 pm

HitchcockLang wrote:
cdnchris wrote:It was mentioned late in the original Star Wars how many of the squad died trying to get the plans for the Death Star to the rebels. So don't expect everyone to make it at the end I guess...
Unless I'm mistaken, I think you're thinking of the "many Bothans gave their lives for this information" line from Return of the Jedi which pertains to the intel gathered to destroy the second Deathstar so it doesn't really relate to Rogue One at all.

Easy mistake to make though since the entire franchise just keeps repeating itself.
Yes, you're right, my mistake! I could have sworn there was something similar in the first one but it's been a while (well, at least a few weeks before the last one came out, and then who knows how long before that).

Post Reply