Page 33 of 277
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 2:48 pm
by epilogue
E.H. Ruddock wrote:E.H. Ruddock wrote:Strat wrote:WHO IS THE CLOAKED FIGURE
Lieutenant Phasma
This took me way longer than it should have to spell out "lieutenant" correctly, btw.
Thank you for your service.
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 2:49 pm
by epilogue
LoathedVermin72 wrote:Stop talking about fucking TFA in this thread you shitlords
Yeah, where do you jabronies get off, talking about Star Wars in a Star Wars thread!
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 2:49 pm
by LetMeSleep
E.H. Ruddock wrote:LetMeSleep wrote:E.H. Ruddock wrote:McParadigm wrote:Force Awakens didn't have a lot of individually "bad" lines. It's problem was that 90% of them were either exposition or shouted stage directions. There wasn't a lot below the surface.
"This is a map to Luke Skywalker."
"I will take the map to the Resistance."
"Good. (Looking directly at audience) It's important and there are stakes."
Later...
"Run over here!"
"I can't because I'm fixing a thing!"
"I'm going to try something then, so we can-"
"Wait! Look at those xwings! Those are the resistance!"
"Thank you for explaining that to the audience for me!"
I don't know, Finn's delivery on some lines were
very out of place for a Star Wars movie.
Is this a race thing?
Not at all. I just mean they felt like he was in a present day, earth as the setting, movie. We can't have hipsters and millenials infiltrating the dialogue in a Star Wars movie.
VS
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 2:51 pm
by epilogue
Finn's stuff didn't really bug me. I can understand why people have that criticism, I suppose. But it's not something I would haven noticed or thought to critique if others hadn't brought it up to me. It's a massive galaxy. There are a lot of dialects and speech patterns.
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 2:55 pm
by epilogue
I have to say the AT-AT shots didn't really do anything for me. There was no emotional response to their presence. The shots are gorgeous but they could have been a new piece of machinery and had the same affect on me. Ditto the Falcon in TFA trailers, though. Perhaps "iconography" in Star Wars means very little to me.
Then again, that shot of the downed Star Destroyer in TFA took my breath away. But again, I think it was the shot not the fact of the Star Destroyer? Maybe?
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 2:56 pm
by Strat
durdencommatyler wrote:I have to say the AT-AT shots didn't really do anything for me. There was no emotional response to their presence. The shots are gorgeous but they could have been a new piece of machinery and had the same affect on me. Ditto the Falcon in TFA trailers, though. Perhaps "iconography" in Star Wars means very little to me.
Then again, that shot of the downed Star Destroyer in TFA took my breath away. But again, I think it was the shot not the fact of the Star Destroyer? Maybe?
Keep working it out and you will get there.
The AT At's were too far away which makes me feel they were digitally placed. I dont know. I didnt love it either.
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 2:57 pm
by LoathedVermin72
durdencommatyler wrote:I have to say the AT-AT shots didn't really do anything for me. There was no emotional response to their presence. The shots are gorgeous but they could have been a new piece of machinery and had the same affect on me. Ditto the Falcon in TFA trailers, though. Perhaps "iconography" in Star Wars means very little to me.
Then again, that shot of the downed Star Destroyer in TFA took my breath away. But again, I think it was the shot not the fact of the Star Destroyer? Maybe?
It's not at all about the iconography for me. It's about Edwards' visual composition. He's a master.
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 2:59 pm
by epilogue
LoathedVermin72 wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:I have to say the AT-AT shots didn't really do anything for me. There was no emotional response to their presence. The shots are gorgeous but they could have been a new piece of machinery and had the same affect on me. Ditto the Falcon in TFA trailers, though. Perhaps "iconography" in Star Wars means very little to me.
Then again, that shot of the downed Star Destroyer in TFA took my breath away. But again, I think it was the shot not the fact of the Star Destroyer? Maybe?
It's not at all about the iconography for me. It's about Edwards' visual composition. He's a master.
Sure. I figured that's what you were responding to. Did you have any kind of response or positive reaction to the downed Star Destroyer shot in TFA? Or any of those similar shots; shots that expressed visual composition? I know Abrams and Edwards have different styles but I'm just curious, if you lay aside how much you dislike JJ in general, was there anything in the move that worked for you in this regard? Or was it all just flat garbage to you?
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 3:01 pm
by epilogue
Also, this ninja is interesting. I can't wait to learn more about his context in this thing. Is he blind? Why don't the Strom Troopers just fucking shoot him? Is it a coincidence that we have characters in both of the most recent Star Wars films fighting with staffs?
I haven't read any spoilers or anything for this. Is it possible Felicity's character turns? Is she a double agent? I can't say that I'm more excited by this first trailer than I was by the first Force Awakens trailer, but I'm certainly not less excited.
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 3:02 pm
by Greedo
This was a good time to be alive
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 3:03 pm
by Strat
durdencommatyler wrote:Also, this ninja is interesting. I can't wait to learn more about his context in this thing. Is he blind? Why don't the Strom Troopers just fucking shoot him? Is it a coincidence that we have characters in both of the most recent Star Wars films fighting with staffs?
I haven't read any spoilers or anything for this. Is it possible Felicity's character turns? Is she a double agent? I can't say that I'm more excited by this first trailer than I was by the first Force Awakens trailer, but I'm certainly not less excited.
I'm less excited because im a rube but i was absurdly excited for TFA. I'm curious about these new characters and this storyline ( i think its a great idea for a film) but i know im not going to be emotionally invested in them over the next 5 years or whatever.
Also, can we digitally place some of these new characters in the background of some scenes in A New Hope come next special release?
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 3:03 pm
by dprival78
ninjas and palm trees.. star wars firsts
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 3:04 pm
by Kaius
LoathedVermin72 wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:I have to say the AT-AT shots didn't really do anything for me. There was no emotional response to their presence. The shots are gorgeous but they could have been a new piece of machinery and had the same affect on me. Ditto the Falcon in TFA trailers, though. Perhaps "iconography" in Star Wars means very little to me.
Then again, that shot of the downed Star Destroyer in TFA took my breath away. But again, I think it was the shot not the fact of the Star Destroyer? Maybe?
It's not at all about the iconography for me. It's about Edwards' visual composition. He's a master.
It reminded me of looking up at the giant octo aliens in Monsters. They were way more threatening in that teaser than they've been in any other SW movie.
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 3:06 pm
by epilogue
Strat wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:Also, this ninja is interesting. I can't wait to learn more about his context in this thing. Is he blind? Why don't the Strom Troopers just fucking shoot him? Is it a coincidence that we have characters in both of the most recent Star Wars films fighting with staffs?
I haven't read any spoilers or anything for this. Is it possible Felicity's character turns? Is she a double agent? I can't say that I'm more excited by this first trailer than I was by the first Force Awakens trailer, but I'm certainly not less excited.
I'm less excited because im a rube but i was absurdly excited for TFA. I'm curious about these new characters and this storyline ( i think its a great idea for a film) but i know im not going to be emotionally invested in them over the next 5 years or whatever.
Sure. I get what you're saying. I'm just trying to compare the content of the first TFA trailer directly to the content of this first RO trailer. This might be the better trailer, ignoring all the other baggage.
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 3:08 pm
by dimejinky99
LetMeSleep wrote:Strat wrote:
Did they get a T800 from Cyberdine?
Looks like North Greenwich tube station.
Fuck!! It really does!!
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 3:09 pm
by epilogue
Oh hey! Verm, I didn't realize that was Diego Luna. #BloodFathersForLife
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 3:10 pm
by LoathedVermin72
durdencommatyler wrote:LoathedVermin72 wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:I have to say the AT-AT shots didn't really do anything for me. There was no emotional response to their presence. The shots are gorgeous but they could have been a new piece of machinery and had the same affect on me. Ditto the Falcon in TFA trailers, though. Perhaps "iconography" in Star Wars means very little to me.
Then again, that shot of the downed Star Destroyer in TFA took my breath away. But again, I think it was the shot not the fact of the Star Destroyer? Maybe?
It's not at all about the iconography for me. It's about Edwards' visual composition. He's a master.
Sure. I figured that's what you were responding to. Did you have any kind of response or positive reaction to the downed Star Destroyer shot in TFA? Or any of those similar shots; shots that expressed visual composition? I know Abrams and Edwards have different styles but I'm just curious, if you lay aside how much you dislike JJ in general, was there anything in the move that worked for you in this regard? Or was it all just flat garbage to you?
The downed destroyer was cool. I don't think Abrams expressed the same sense of scale, menace, or sublime awe that Edwards is so adept at conveying, but it was a nice visual.
I still think the initial leaked teaser for this gives a better taste of Edwards' real talent, and what will make this film so good.
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 3:10 pm
by epilogue
So, the screenwriter on this wrote Antz and Nutty Professor II: The Klumps.
How worried should we really be?
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 3:11 pm
by LoathedVermin72
durdencommatyler wrote:Oh hey! Verm, I didn't realize that was Diego Luna. #BloodFathersForLife
This movie has a fantastic cast. That shot of Mendelsohn? Fuhgeddaboutit
Re: Star Wars: Rogue One
Posted: Thu April 07, 2016 3:12 pm
by epilogue
LoathedVermin72 wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:Oh hey! Verm, I didn't realize that was Diego Luna. #BloodFathersForLife
This movie has a fantastic cast. That shot of Mendelsohn? Fuhgeddaboutit
Yeah, I knew he was in this but I didn't even recognize him in that shot. It was fantastic and one of the best shots in the trailer. This cast is outstanding.