# Rogue One trailer



## Morrus (Apr 7, 2016)

Oh, my...

[video=youtube;Wji-BZ0oCwg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wji-BZ0oCwg[/video]


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 7, 2016)

SWEET!  Looks very interesting.


----------



## Dioltach (Apr 7, 2016)

Looks good. This one appeals to me more than The Force Awakens.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 7, 2016)

I predict a high Bothan kill rate. Looks very good, from this limited look. I hope that they keep it that way; limited.


----------



## horacethegrey (Apr 7, 2016)

Looks awesome, and with a very different feel to the mainline Star Wars movies, but still keeping the visuals.

I especially appreciate the fact that [sblock]they didn't show Darth Vader in the trailer. It's rumored that he'll be the big bad of the film.[/sblock]


----------



## tomBitonti (Apr 7, 2016)

Not a complaint (I have a fondness for ladies with British accents of all sorts), but the heroine seems very similar to the lead from The Force Awakens.  Did the British Commonwealth extend to the whole of the Galaxy in the distant past in the Star Wars universe?  (Actually, all of this was "a long time ago", so not really possible.  Or maybe there was a time bridge to the heyday of the British Empire.  Anyways.)

The movie does look good.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Morrus (Apr 7, 2016)

tomBitonti said:


> Not a complaint (I have a fondness for ladies with British accents of all sorts), but the heroine seems very similar to the lead from The Force Awakens.  Did the British Commonwealth extend to the whole of the Galaxy in the distant past in the Star Wars universe?  (Actually, all of this was "a long time ago", so not really possible.  Or maybe there was a time bridge to the heyday of the British Empire.  Anyways.)




The only similarity I see is that they're both female British actors. They seem to be very different characters to me. This character seems to be an older tough, gritty criminal type, and is in her 30s. She seems to be a Han Solo to Rey's 20-ish yr old Luke Skywalker.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 7, 2016)

Rey's mom? Thus the two similar female leads. Althought she would probably be too old without space fertility drugs. Would she be too old to be Rey's mom?


----------



## ccs (Apr 7, 2016)

Awesome! AT-ATs in action.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 7, 2016)

A fella could get used to this one-SW-flick-per-year stuff.


----------



## Istbor (Apr 7, 2016)

I loved the use of the sounding alarm. This has me excited, because it looks good, and because it is something to feed off of until Episode VIII.


----------



## trappedslider (Apr 8, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> I predict a high Bothan kill rate.




That's the second death star.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 8, 2016)

trappedslider said:


> That's the second death star.




Well...


----------



## Umbran (Apr 8, 2016)

goldomark said:


> Rey's mom? Thus the two similar female leads. Althought she would probably be too old without space fertility drugs. Would she be too old to be Rey's mom?




No, I think it's possible.  This movie happens *just* before Episode IV.  So, she's a contemporary of Luke, Han, and Leia - and to my eye she's not any older than Han.  So, her being Rey's mom is plausible.

I'm not sure we need *every* major character related by blood, but it could be as you suggest, from what little we know.


----------



## PurpleDragonKnight (Apr 8, 2016)

Whu? is this Star Wars 8 or some kind of prequel *un-numbered* movie.... 'cause if they start doing un-numbered, I'd be cool with that....


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Apr 8, 2016)

Freakin' awesome!

I'm hoping this feeds into the Battle of Toporawa that was canon from the Star Wars radio dramatization, which shows Princess Leia, R2D2, and C3PO intercepting the plans from the team that captured and transmitted them ... but not the actual recovery of the plans themselves.

N.B. ... Bothans were Death Star II.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 8, 2016)

Umbran said:


> No, I think it's possible.  This movie happens *just* before Episode IV.  So, she's a contemporary of Luke, Han, and Leia - and to my eye she's not any older than Han.  So, her being Rey's mom is plausible.
> 
> I'm not sure we need *every* major character related by blood, but it could be as you suggest, from what little we know.




And it would make the reveal of who is Rey's mother more significant. Anyone else would pretty much be out of left field. Althought Rey being the child of Luke and Boba Fett would get my thumbs up just for the MRA/GG rage it would produce.

Rogue One being used as an origine story for some characters we saw in TFA sounds very plausbile when we consider the mysterious hooded figure in black that we briefly see. Snoke maybe? http://io9.gizmodo.com/every-cool-detail-we-spotted-in-the-rogue-one-a-star-w-1769606654


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 8, 2016)

tomBitonti said:


> Not a complaint (I have a fondness for ladies with British accents of all sorts), but the heroine seems very similar to the lead from The Force Awakens.  Did the British Commonwealth extend to the whole of the Galaxy in the distant past in the Star Wars universe?  (Actually, all of this was "a long time ago", so not really possible.  Or maybe there was a time bridge to the heyday of the British Empire.  Anyways.)
> 
> The movie does look good.
> 
> ...



It is that good clone DNA in the future


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 8, 2016)

PurpleDragonKnight said:


> Whu? is this Star Wars 8 or some kind of prequel *un-numbered* movie.... 'cause if they start doing un-numbered, I'd be cool with that....



It is a spin off, the first of many.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 8, 2016)

PurpleDragonKnight said:


> Whu? is this Star Wars 8 or some kind of prequel *un-numbered* movie.... 'cause if they start doing un-numbered, I'd be cool with that....




My understanding is that they intend to alternate movies in the core plotline with side-stories.  Keeps you in a steady stream of Star Warsiness, while allowing them time to actually make the movies.


----------



## trappedslider (Apr 8, 2016)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Freakin' awesome!
> 
> I'm hoping this feeds into the Battle of Toporawa that was canon from the Star Wars radio dramatization, which shows Princess Leia, R2D2, and C3PO intercepting the plans from the team that captured and transmitted them ... but not the actual recovery of the plans themselves.




The radio dramatization isn't canon anymore


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Apr 9, 2016)

trappedslider said:


> The radio dramatization isn't canon anymore




So? This could re-canonize it. The original was produced with the support and cooperation of Lucas, so it was the story ... until it wasn't.


----------



## JediSoth (Apr 9, 2016)

This should clear things up for those of you who have questions.


----------



## Tonguez (Apr 9, 2016)

I was kinda hoping that the crew of the Ghost would be involved in recovering the plans but it seems we have another motley crew for that role, maybe they could have Ezra and co in for cameos.

also did anyone else note that this crew seems to be all human(ish) with no obvious aliens in their mix?


----------



## hamishspence (Apr 10, 2016)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> So? This could re-canonize it. The original was produced with the support and cooperation of Lucas, so it was the story ... until it wasn't.




So far, what they've recanonized has tended to contradict it some. We have Dr Evazan the mad scientist, not Roofoo the small-time punk, accosting Luke in the cantina, for example.


----------



## Elodan (Apr 10, 2016)

Tonguez said:


> I was kinda hoping that the crew of the Ghost would be involved in recovering the plans but it seems we have another motley crew for that role, maybe they could have Ezra and co in for cameos.
> 
> also did anyone else note that this crew seems to be all human(ish) with no obvious aliens in their mix?




When you're trying to infiltrate the Empire which is pretty much anti-anything-not-human, it makes sense that your team would be mostly, if not all, humans.


----------



## hamishspence (Apr 10, 2016)

Elodan said:


> When you're trying to infiltrate the Empire which is pretty much anti-anything-not-human, it makes sense that your team would be mostly, if not all, humans.




The newcanon Empire is somewhat less anti-alien than the old one. The Grand Vizier is an alien, every Inquisitor so far has been an alien, etc.


----------



## Tonguez (Apr 10, 2016)

Elodan said:


> When you're trying to infiltrate the Empire which is pretty much anti-anything-not-human, it makes sense that your team would be mostly, if not all, humans.




Yes that makes sense. Although the New Hope did it with a Wookie and two droids


----------



## Morrus (Apr 10, 2016)

Tonguez said:


> Yes that makes sense. Although the New Hope did it with a Wookie and two droids




They weren't exactly a specially selected infiltration team.  And they didn't exactly fool anybody for long!


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 11, 2016)

Morrus said:


> They weren't exactly a specially selected infiltration team.  And they didn't exactly fool anybody for long!




And they had the Force with them


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 11, 2016)

I'm excited for this.  It's the first original Star Wars film in years.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2016)

This does look pretty cool.   Also looks a bit less kid friendly than the Force Awakens.  I also like the subtitle - A Star Wars Story.  Nice.


----------



## Nellisir (Apr 13, 2016)

I really like the feel of this trailer for some reason. It clicks.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 13, 2016)

Looks pretty cool. 
It makes sense that the Rebel Alliance wouldn't all be political idealists and freedom fighters but also include some anarchists and, well, terrorists. I dig. Star Wars does lend itself to war stories, and the theft of the Death Star plans are a doozie. Hopefully it will make up for the disappointment that was Force Awakens and actually tell a new story.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 13, 2016)

Hussar said:


> This does look pretty cool.   Also looks a bit less kid friendly than the Force Awakens.



It kinda does. While I'm hard on Batman v Superman for going dark in a kid friendly franchise I'm oddly okay with this. 
Likely because, like Suicide Squad, this is a story off to the side from the main franchise, so it feels easier to get away with darkness and adult themes. I don't mind not being able to take my son to _all_ Star Wars films so long as I can take him to _some_ Star Wars films.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 13, 2016)

Funnily enough though, the latest Suicide Squad trailer looks a lot less grim and dark.


----------



## Maxperson (Apr 13, 2016)

That looked amazing.  I just have one comment.



Morrus said:


> Oh, my...




It's Star Wars, not Star Trek


----------



## Maxperson (Apr 13, 2016)

Hussar said:


> Funnily enough though, the latest Suicide Squad trailer looks a lot less grim and dark.




They flubbed it by making Batman v. Superman which should have been light, too dark.  So in their brilliant lack of understanding, they're taking what SHOULD be a dark movie and according to my wife, re-shooting some scenes to make it less dark.


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 13, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> They flubbed it by making Batman v. Superman which should have been light, too dark.  So in their brilliant lack of understanding, they're taking what SHOULD be a dark movie and according to my wife, re-shooting some scenes to make it less dark.




The reshoots, according to one of the actors, are for action scenes, not for increased levity.  There is a short clip about it on the Collider YouTube page.


----------



## Maxperson (Apr 13, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> The reshoots, according to one of the actors, are for action scenes, not for increased levity.  There is a short clip about it on the Collider YouTube page.




It really makes no difference to me.  I'm not planning on seeing it either way.  However, I've never heard of a movie re-shooting scenes at this cost so close to release just to add in more action.  I'm more inclined to believe that it was about the humor and the director is just saying it's about the action.  If the film were so deficient in its action, the re-shoots would have happened sooner, and not very coincidentally right after another DC film bombed due to being too dark.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 13, 2016)

Jester Canuck said:


> Looks pretty cool.
> It makes sense that the Rebel Alliance wouldn't all be political idealists and freedom fighters but also include some anarchists and, well, terrorists. I dig. Star Wars does lend itself to war stories, and the theft of the Death Star plans are a doozie. Hopefully it will make up for the disappointment that was Force Awakens and actually tell a new story.




This film is about the Rebels and the Death Star. How will it be a new story?


----------



## Morrus (Apr 13, 2016)

goldomark said:


> This film is about the Rebels and the Death Star. How will it be a new story?




Because the stealing of the Death Star plans is a story which has not been told before. The very definition of a new story.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 13, 2016)

goldomark said:


> This film is about the Rebels and the Death Star. How will it be a new story?




That's what I'm wondering about. It could be a very different movie that goes in a different direction from the other Star Wars films. Or it could just hit the same beats as Empire or Return of the Jedi, maybe telling the standard "tempted by evil" story of Anakin & Luke but with a non-Jedi character.


----------



## Joker (Apr 13, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> It really makes no difference to me.  I'm not planning on seeing it either way.  However, I've never heard of a movie re-shooting scenes at this cost so close to release just to add in more action.  I'm more inclined to believe that it was about the humor and the director is just saying it's about the action.  If the film were so deficient in its action, the re-shoots would have happened sooner, and not very coincidentally right after another DC film bombed due to being too dark.




Reshoots happen all the time.  You probably don't hear about them because it's such a frequent occurrence.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 13, 2016)

This looks amazing. It feels like a fresh take on Star Wars. The trailer does a good job presenting a new look at the Star Wars universe, beyond just quoting the previous films.

Felicity Jones looks well-cast. And though this kind of thing doesn't usually ping my radar, I admit it makes me happy to see Donnie Yen looking like he's gonna whack someone with a kendo stick. It's nice to see a Asian actor in major role in a film series about heroic space cop _samurai_.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 13, 2016)

Jester Canuck said:


> That's what I'm wondering about. It could be a very different movie that goes in a different direction from the other Star Wars films. Or it could just hit the same beats as Empire or Return of the Jedi, maybe telling the standard "tempted by evil" story of Anakin & Luke but with a non-Jedi character.




If the main character is force sensitive, all bets of a new story are off. And as long as you stay entwine with the Empire, the Death Star, Siths, Storm Troopers, etc, "new" isn't going to accurate.


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 13, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> It really makes no difference to me.  I'm not planning on seeing it either way.  However, I've never heard of a movie re-shooting scenes at this cost so close to release just to add in more action.  I'm more inclined to believe that it was about the humor and the director is just saying it's about the action.  If the film were so deficient in its action, the re-shoots would have happened sooner, and not very coincidentally right after another DC film bombed due to being too dark.




Reshoots take time to schedule.  You have to get the pertinent actors and staff back, put the sets back up, etc.  The reshoots were likely in the works before the critical reception of BvS was determined.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 13, 2016)

goldomark said:


> If the main character is force sensitive, all bets of a new story are off. And as long as you stay entwine with the Empire, the Death Star, Siths, Storm Troopers, etc, "new" isn't going to accurate.




It's one thing to tell the story of a young force sensitive figure joining the Rebel Alliance and facing an evil Empire and it's giant spherical planet destroying weapon. 
It's another to tell that story with a youth on a desert planet with unknown yet important parents who finds a droid with vital information, an escape from said planet in the Millennium Falcon, a trip to a shady cantina, a wise Small sized mentor that has been around for centuries who instructs in the Force, a shield generator that needs to be deactivated, an X-wing performing a trench run before blowing up a spherical planet destroying superweapon, a fallen Jedi in black with a mask killing an aged mentor, and the like.

You can play with a lot of the iconic Star Wars elements and even touch on familiar plots and tell a new story. They did it with the prequels, they did it with Clone Wars and the follow-up series, and they did it with many of the comics and novels. Heck, they even did a plot with a fallen Jedi, evil Empire, superweapon, and more similarities in Knights of the Old Republic and it worked without being a carbon copy and doing its own thing.
A new story is very possible. 
Rogue One is Disney's chance to show they're willing to do more with Star Wars than just milk nostalgia. Or it could just be a mishmash of homages, Easter Eggs, and rip-offs.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 13, 2016)

If it has anybody with eyes in it, it's not a new story. All Star Wars movies have featured people with eyes.


----------



## Tonguez (Apr 13, 2016)

goldomark said:


> This film is about the Rebels and the Death Star. How will it be a new story?




yeah well we do know how it ends (sort of) and the trailer gives us an idea of how it starts,now I'm ready for the ride through the middle, which I am confident has the scope to be refreshingly new while still being closely tied to the arc. The fact that they don't appear to have droids or aliens in the core cast already helps there. 
Although if the core premise is infiltrate the enemy base and steal stuff it does seem a bit familiar


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 13, 2016)

Duplicate post


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 13, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> Reshoots take time to schedule.  You have to get the pertinent actors and staff back, put the sets back up, etc.  The reshoots were likely in the works before the critical reception of BvS was determined.




And maybe even put your stars in cheesy wigs, when the producers decide to trash half of the director's vision.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 14, 2016)

goldomark said:


> If the main character is force sensitive, all bets of a new story are off. And as long as you stay entwine with the Empire, the Death Star, Siths, Storm Troopers, etc, "new" isn't going to accurate.




What is your definition of "new"?

From what we've seen, all the characters are new - well Mon Mothra (sp) has been around, but, she was hardly a major character, just a bit of Exposition.  

It's Star Wars, thus, it's going to have the tropes of Star Wars.  That's a given.  But, I'm actually kind of curious what you mean by a new.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 14, 2016)

goldomark said:


> If the main character is force sensitive, all bets of a new story are off. And as long as you stay entwine with the Empire, the Death Star, Siths, Storm Troopers, etc, "new" isn't going to accurate.




I think you are confusing "story" with "setting".  

Otherwise, it is like saying you can't have a new story set in and dealing with the contemporary Washington DC, because there's still a USA, Capitol Building, FBI, and US Army.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 14, 2016)

Hussar said:


> What is your definition of "new"?
> 
> From what we've seen, all the characters are new - well Mon Mothra (sp) has been around, but, she was hardly a major character, just a bit of Exposition.
> 
> It's Star Wars, thus, it's going to have the tropes of Star Wars.  That's a given.  But, I'm actually kind of curious what you mean by a new.




The universe ain't gonna change, but you could have story that has nothin to do with the Rebels, the Empire, their TFA carboncopies, the force, Jedis, Siths and all the cast of characters that are really old now. Like a Guardians of the Galaxy movie, but in the Star Wars universe.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 14, 2016)

Greyhawk: The story you tell while following a Paladin's group will be much different from the story you tell in The Hold of the Sea Princes, but it's still Greyhawk. I'm looking forward to seeing a little of the universe's dark underbelly.


----------



## MarkB (Apr 14, 2016)

goldomark said:


> The universe ain't gonna change, but you could have story that has nothin to do with the Rebels, the Empire, their TFA carboncopies, the force, Jedis, Siths and all the cast of characters that are really old now. Like a Guardians of the Galaxy movie, but in the Star Wars universe.




Take all of that away, and why bother setting it in the Star Wars universe at all?


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 14, 2016)

MarkB said:


> Take all of that away, and why bother setting it in the Star Wars universe at all?




Why not set it in the Star Wars universe? Ain't the Star Wars universe great? Does it need Luke, the force, the Death Star, etc, to be great?


----------



## Umbran (Apr 14, 2016)

goldomark said:


> Why not set it in the Star Wars universe? Ain't the Star Wars universe great? Does it need Luke, the force, the Death Star, etc, to be great?




If you remove all the things that make it clearly Star Wars, _how would you know_ it was in the Star Wars universe?  I mean, aside from the words "Star Wars" on the marquee?

"I want Neapolitan ice cream!  But, I want it without the chocolate and the strawberry!"


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 14, 2016)

Umbran said:


> If you remove all the things that make it clearly Star Wars, _how would you know_ it was in the Star Wars universe?  I mean, aside from the words "Star Wars" on the marquee?
> 
> "I want Neapolitan ice cream!  But, I want it without the chocolate and the strawberry!"



Lots of planets with sand. Star Wars fan love sand planets. 

If the Star Wars universe needs Luke and the force to have an identity, then it will never have original stories after the original trilogy. They will all look like the TFA and be pretty bad.


----------



## Tonguez (Apr 14, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> Greyhawk: The story you tell while following a Paladin's group will be much different from the story you tell in The Hold of the Sea Princes, but it's still Greyhawk. I'm looking forward to seeing a little of the universe's dark underbelly.




didn't we already see that in Jabba the Hutts Palace? 
plus theres the Rebels cartoon (is that canon?)



goldomark said:


> Why not set it in the Star Wars universe? Ain't the Star Wars universe great? Does it need Luke, the force, the Death Star, etc, to be great?




I suppose its now confirmed that ET is part of the Star Wars universe - so I suppose thats an argument in favour of 'other stories'

but really if it doesn't at the very least feature the Force then what exists to differentiate the Franchise from 'Firefly' or any other Sci-Fi setting?

*EDIT:* (lol just did some googling and apparently a couple of Star Wars ships including an Imperial Shuttle and a Starlight Intruder appear in Firefly. Firefly also references Aliens, Starship Troopers and Brisco County Jr. 
Apparently Star Wars also shares a universe with Indiana Jones)


----------



## Hussar (Apr 15, 2016)

goldomark said:


> The universe ain't gonna change, but you could have story that has nothin to do with the Rebels, the Empire, their TFA carboncopies, the force, Jedis, Siths and all the cast of characters that are really old now. Like a Guardians of the Galaxy movie, but in the Star Wars universe.




Umm, I'm sure I'm not the only one to see the irony in calling Guardians of the Galaxy a "new" movie.  Considering it's pretty much follows the Avengers formula to a T, how do you consider it a "new" movie?

If there's no Rebels, Jedi, or Empire at all - they are completely removed from the story, what makes this a Star Wars movie?  Tropes are important.  Strip out all those tropes and you have... generic SF universe?  Maybe?  And note, none of the cast from the other movies apparently appears in this one.  No Luke or Leia, no Han or anything like that.

We might have a Darth Vader, but, meh, nothing wrong with a shot of what Vader was like between the prequels and the originals.


----------



## MarkB (Apr 15, 2016)

goldomark said:


> Why not set it in the Star Wars universe? Ain't the Star Wars universe great?




What makes it great? Once you strip out all the iconic elements that have been used in the existing movies, what's left that makes it identifiably Star Wars, and not just generic-sci-fi-setting?


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 15, 2016)

Tonguez said:


> didn't we already see that in Jabba the Hutts Palace?
> plus theres the Rebels cartoon (is that canon?)




Are dipping your toes in the water and diving in, head first, the same thing?


----------



## Umbran (Apr 15, 2016)

goldomark said:


> If the Star Wars universe needs Luke and the force to have an identity, then it will never have original stories after the original trilogy. They will all look like the TFA and be pretty bad.




Dude, we already know that Luke is not appearing in Rogue One.  We don't have any clear statement that the Force is a major player, either.  Maybe Vader as the BBEG, but that could be just as a looming presence they have to outrun.

You are, of course, free to have your own opinion on what makes a movie good or bad.  But I'm going to guess that most of the rest of us will have a good time at the movies.


----------



## trappedslider (Apr 15, 2016)

if you take out everything that makes it star wars then you might as well call it star bores,since it wouldn't be star wars


----------



## delericho (Apr 15, 2016)

MarkB said:


> What makes it great? Once you strip out all the iconic elements that have been used in the existing movies, what's left that makes it identifiably Star Wars, and not just generic-sci-fi-setting?




Maybe what they should do is take out only _some_ of the iconic elements while still using some others to ground the story in the setting. That way you get a recognisably new story that's also recognisably a Star Wars story.

Of course, that pretty much describes what they _are_ doing. Funny, that.


----------



## Elodan (Apr 15, 2016)

Tonguez said:


> didn't we already see that in Jabba the Hutts Palace?
> plus theres the Rebels cartoon (is that canon?)




_Star Wars: Rebels_ is canon.
http://www.starwars.com/news/the-legendary-star-wars-expanded-universe-turns-a-new-page


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 15, 2016)

Hussar said:


> Umm, I'm sure I'm not the only one to see the irony in calling Guardians of the Galaxy a "new" movie.  Considering it's pretty much follows the Avengers formula to a T, how do you consider it a "new" movie?



I didn't call it a new movie. You just did.



> If there's no Rebels, Jedi, or Empire at all - they are completely removed from the story, what makes this a Star Wars movie?



That it is set in a galaxy far far away. After that, writers should use their imagination.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 15, 2016)

Tonguez said:


> I suppose its now confirmed that ET is part of the Star Wars universe - so I suppose thats an argument in favour of 'other stories'



E.T. 2: The Revenge.

[uoqte]but really if it doesn't at the very least feature the Force then what exists to differentiate the Franchise from 'Firefly' or any other Sci-Fi setting?[/quote]Is Star Wars really that undistinguishable from Star Trek, the Alien universe, Doctor Who Cares, Firefly and Guardians of the Galaxy?


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 15, 2016)

MarkB said:


> What makes it great? Once you strip out all the iconic elements that have been used in the existing movies, what's left that makes it identifiably Star Wars, and not just generic-sci-fi-setting?




So your argument is that Star Wars and Star Trek are the same?


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 15, 2016)

Umbran said:


> You are, of course, free to have your own opinion on what makes a movie good or bad.  But I'm going to guess that most of the rest of us will have a good time at the movies.



Maybe I will. I'm not a fanboy and I didn't travel to the future, so I'll have to wait _after_ I see the film to say if I liked it or not.

What I do know for sure is that The Force Awakens showed the limits of tapping into the Empire, Jedis, the force, the Death Star, Luke, etc, and that Rogue One is doing it again.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 15, 2016)

goldomark said:


> So your argument is that Star Wars and Star Trek are the same?




I think the argument (which is actually a pretty solid mathematical principle) is that if you remove everything that makes something a member of a set, it ceases to be in that set.  A Star Wars movie that contains no recognizable Star Wars elements is a contradiction in terms.


----------



## Tonguez (Apr 15, 2016)

goldomark said:


> Is Star Wars really that undistinguishable from Star Trek, the Alien universe, Doctor Who Cares, Firefly and Guardians of the Galaxy?




um lets see

*Star Wars* - a group of rebels/smugglers join a kid with powers to fight against the imperial expansion of a militarized government

*Firefly* - a group of rebels/smugglers join a kid with powers to fight against the imperial expansion of a militarized government
*
GotG* - a group of criminals/smugglers join a kid with powers to fight against the imperial expansion of a militarized government. 
_In this one the Militant General (Ronan) and the Emperor (Thanos) are building a doomsday weapon (Infinity Stones) that can destroy a planet_

Blakes 7, Stargate, Farscape.
Doctor Who sort of follows the premise of the Kid with powers fighting bad guys across space too, and Star Trek federation could be argued to be the founding of the Republic

So nope without the Star Wars tropes they're all pretty much vanilla sci-fi


----------



## MarkB (Apr 15, 2016)

goldomark said:


> So your argument is that Star Wars and Star Trek are the same?




I didn't make an argument. I asked a question. Do you have an answer to the question?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 15, 2016)

goldomark said:


> I didn't call it a new movie. You just did.
> 
> That it is set in a galaxy far far away. After that, writers should use their imagination.




Ah, Semantics: The Blathering.  Sorry, not interested.  Your statement was that the new movie should be new like Guardian's of the Galaxy.  Now, either you mis stated, in which case you need to explain your point better, or your just trolling.  Since you then doubled down, it's obvious you're just trolling on a ridiculous topic for the sake of drumming up, what exactly?  

Pointless waste of time and shame on me for engaging.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 16, 2016)

Tonguez said:


> GotG[/B] - a group of criminals/smugglers join a kid with powers to fight against the imperial expansion of a militarized government.




Except the kid (the only person represented in that movie as a child was Peter Quill) doesn't have powers.  He's just a dude.



> Farscape. Doctor Who




Again, not seeing the "kid with powers" here.  Doctor Who hasn't really had one since... Adric?


----------



## Tonguez (Apr 16, 2016)

Umbran said:


> Except the kid (the only person represented in that movie as a child was Peter Quill) doesn't have powers.  He's just a dude.




They don't reveal it until the end but Peter Quill is indeed the special kid with powers - in his case he's the only 'mortal' able to wield the infinity stones because apparently he has a special unknown father




> Again, not seeing the "kid with powers" here.  Doctor Who hasn't really had one since... Adric?




Okay so Doctor Who was a long stretch - but the Daleks do call the Doctor "the last child of Gallifrey" and both Rose and Clara might be considered 'Kids with powers' (their relative youthfulness vs the Doctor was highlighted in the show) - but yeah maybe not Doctor Who


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 18, 2016)

Tonguez said:


> um lets see
> 
> *Star Wars* - a group of rebels/smugglers join a kid with powers to fight against the imperial expansion of a militarized government
> 
> ...




That isn't the story I'm talking about. With Rogue One I'm talking about Rebels going after the Death Star. We know that story. It is the iconic #4... and 6, and 7 and arguably #1. Now 3.5 is about it again? We know. The Rebels really want to blow the Death Star. And do it. Many times. Can we get something else? 

Obviously not, since fans demand more and more of the same thing. Of well. As long as fans give their money to Disney, all will stay the same.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 18, 2016)

Hussar said:


> Your statement was that the new movie should be new like Guardian's of the Galaxy.



I never said GotG was new. I said it should be like GotG. So new characters unrelated to Rebels fighting the Empire doing their own thing. And actually fun, compared to the last 5 Star Wars movies.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 18, 2016)

MarkB said:


> I didn't make an argument. I asked a question. Do you have an answer to the question?




Oen can answer with a question. The thing is, maybe someone can't put words on feelings, but I know Star Wars isn't Star Trek even if both are sci-fi.


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 18, 2016)

goldomark said:


> The thing is, maybe someone can't put words on feelings, but I know Star Wars isn't Star Trek *even if both are sci-fi*.




I think that depends on how loosely one defines sci-fi.  For me, Star Wars has always been fantasy in a high-tech setting.  One of the other differences is the way Star Trek conforms to the sci-fi trope of raising questions about the world we live in by analogizing issues in the story.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 18, 2016)

Think I would lean to calling Star Wars pulp, because it has elements of both fantasy and sci-fi, plus it is an adventure serial.


----------



## Tonguez (Apr 18, 2016)

goldomark said:


> That isn't the story I'm talking about. With Rogue One I'm talking about Rebels going after the Death Star. We know that story. It is the iconic #4... and 6, and 7 and arguably #1. Now 3.5 is about it again? We know. The Rebels really want to blow the Death Star. And do it. Many times. Can we get something else?
> 
> Obviously not, since fans demand more and more of the same thing. Of well. As long as fans give their money to Disney, all will stay the same.




yeah I do admit that having another Death Star was the biggest flaw in the new movie, and really shouldn't have happened. But for me the original trilogy was entirely about the Rebels vs Death Star and Rogue One serves to fill the gap of how did Leia get the plans that got the whole franchise going. Its a neat piece of fan service for sure but workes because it fills in the arc rather than repeating it.

Hopefully they branch out in future movies, they already did the 2 Ewok Adventures in 1984/85 so thats something.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 18, 2016)

Tonguez said:


> .
> 
> Hopefully they branch out in future movies, they already did the 2 Ewok Adventures in 1984/85 so thats something.




Yea, [sblock]like a Kessel Run as rumor has it Disney and LucasFilm are casting a young Han Solo.[/sblock]


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 18, 2016)

Tonguez said:


> yeah I do admit that having another Death Star was the biggest flaw in the new movie, and really shouldn't have happened. But for me the original trilogy was entirely about the Rebels vs Death Star and Rogue One serves to fill the gap of how did Leia get the plans that got the whole franchise going. *Its a neat piece of fan service for sure but workes because it fills in the arc rather than repeating it.*



It really is, but the majority of people who go see the films aren't "fans". You still need to reach a wide audience. At least at some point.



> Hopefully they branch out in future movies, they already did the 2 Ewok Adventures in 1984/85 so thats something.



And a Christmas special!


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 18, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> I think that depends on how loosely one defines sci-fi.  For me, Star Wars has always been fantasy in a high-tech setting.  One of the other differences is the way Star Trek conforms to the sci-fi trope of raising questions about the world we live in by analogizing issues in the story.




The force isn't science? What about midi-chlorians!?


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 18, 2016)

goldomark said:


> The force isn't science?




No.




goldomark said:


> What about midi-chlorians!?




What about them?  Just because you invent a microscopic organism that has a symbiotic relationship with a host doesn't mean you've explained how those organisms have access to magical abilities to grant to their host.  Midiclorians are just like The Weave in FR.  However, the midiclorians are widely mocked and regarded as a mistake even by people who actually like the prequels.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 18, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> However, the midiclorians are widely mocked and regarded as a mistake even by people who actually like the prequels.




Thus why I named them.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Apr 22, 2016)

.


----------



## Water Bob (Oct 21, 2016)

This video has some interesting thoughts on the construction of the Death Stars...




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFtPQNRNzCE


----------



## fjw70 (Oct 22, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> No.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, midichlorians are about as much a scientific explanation of the Force as Obi-Wan describing it as an energy field.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 22, 2016)

fjw70 said:


> Yes, midichlorians are about as much a scientific explanation of the Force as Obi-Wan describing it as an energy field.




At least as an energy field, it was mystical to be able to tap into it, which was cool.  Midichlorians were just dumb.


----------



## Water Bob (Oct 22, 2016)

The Legends novel, Darth Plagueis, by James Luceno, does an excellent job of reconciling midicholorians with the mysterious Force from the original trilogy.  In that novel, it is known that the midicholorians exist, but not much else.  There is still mucho mystery.  Darth Plagueius studies them.  In fact, it's a fate he reserves for some of his enemies.  He doesn't kill them, but subdues them and keeps them for study as living subjects.  It kinda reminded me of old Vincent Price scary movies where a scientist graduates from studying the human body through grave robbing in the late 1800's and graduating to live victims, dissected for examination.


----------



## Dioltach (Dec 13, 2016)

Just bought a ticket to see Rogue One on Thursday afternoon...


----------



## Morrus (Dec 13, 2016)

Wednesday night for me! So excited!


----------



## Imaculata (Dec 13, 2016)

Same here! Wednesday night! I'm so hyped!


----------



## RedSiegfried (Dec 13, 2016)

Friday night in Super Ultra Mega Huge Screen 3D.  Hope the weather holds out so I can make it to the theater!


----------



## RedSiegfried (Dec 13, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> However, the midiclorians are widely mocked and regarded as a mistake even by people who actually like the prequels.



It was, I thought, a very clunky way to allow Qui Gon to know with certainty, and to spell it out plainly to the audience, that Anakin was a special kid.  A Force detector, of course!  That'll make it clear!

It's telling instead of showing - bad practice for writers.


----------



## Vagabond234 (Dec 18, 2016)

Just saw it - worth the hype and better than Ep 7 for me!


----------



## wicked cool (Dec 19, 2016)

I would say it was good and there a few moments where its really good but I think Force awakens is still better.

why
1) Honestly there isn't 1 character in rogue one that holds a candle to returning or even new characters in FA. I wanted and maybe my expectactions were unrealistic. I wanted rogue one to be the Force 10 of Navarone of this generation. I wanted to care more for each character and I blame the director for this. 5-10 minutes for character development would have helped. Forest Whitaker and  the pilot needed much more depth 

2) I thought the beginning of Rogue 1 dragged at times (yes last 40 it makes up for it)  

3) Really don't feel characters have that much emotion in it as well. I'm going to compare it to similar movies and compare emotions (FOTR-Sean Bean way more emotional scene, alien 2 Ripley vs queen, Dutch vs predator after his companions gunned down insert that type of movie). these are classic movies but in most cases not A+ acting movies. you feel the tension and want to jump into the scene to help etc. FA has that somewhat compared to rogue 1

3) for a casual fan I would choose force awakens. Rogue 1 has a lot of fan service for the hard core fans including rebels tv show. I've had to explain to a bunch of people why Rogue 1 is out instead of the sequel to FA.

The problem with FA is the big bad is so lackluster compared to any sith wannabee  or really any bad guy in any movie. For the most part these last 2 movies have dropped the ball on adding new bad guys to hate (jury is out on Snoke)   


4)


----------

