Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One (2016)

[The Captain]

We did see a very brief glimpse of canon Alderaan at the end of Episode III when babby Leia is sent to Bail and Breha Organa.

vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/a/a0/Alderaan_mountains.png
vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/c/c0/Aldera_City.png (images are quite large, so just linking the pictures)

The SWTOR art team used the inspiration for their non-canon rendition of Alderaan and it is quite gorgeous.

Also, the main character's name is Jyn Erso. I can't help but notice her name's similarity to Jan Ors, Kyle Katarn's partner in the Dark Forces/Jedi Knight series.

[Professor Chaos]

I was expecting to see Vader or at least hear him breathing in this. He's in the movie right?

[Famous Rocking Chimes]

Apr 7, 2016 15:49:15 GMT -5 Professor Chaos said:

I was expecting to see Vader or at least hear him breathing in this. He's in the movie right?

Yeah he's in it. Might be saving him for the next trailer like they did with Han and Chewie.

[Bub (BLM)]

This looks really good. It's so refreshing to be getting all these Star Wars movies that actually look like you can physically touch the sets after the cartoony prequel trilogy.

[Display Name]

Apr 7, 2016 15:49:15 GMT -5 Professor Chaos said:

I was expecting to see Vader or at least hear him breathing in this. He's in the movie right?

He's in the movie...and you hear one Vader breath at the end of the trailer, right after "What will you become?".

["Trickster Dogg" James Jesse]

This looks so much more visually interesting that Star Wars: The Fan-Film Awakens.

[xCompackx]

Apr 7, 2016 16:25:52 GMT -5 Bub (BLM) said:

This looks really good. It's so refreshing to be getting all these Star Wars movies that actually look like you can physically touch the sets after the cartoony prequel trilogy.

It's funny you say that; I watched The Force Awakens again last night, and it kind of stunned me how great everything looked compared to the prequels. I know 1999-2005 was a long time ago (ha), but I feel like they could've made the sets look a bit more "real" even back then.

[Mochi Lone Wolf]

Couple of observations:


1. Did I see Royal Guards? Usually they're main job is to protect the Emperor and transport Sith artifacts around the galaxy(As was shown in the "Lando" comics.) Does that mean we're going to see the Emperor? Maybe a glimpse of the crystal that the Death Star's superlaser was made out of?



2. No sign of Vader in that trailer(Although, as someone mentioned, I think I did hear a small hint of his breathing somehwere near the end) My guess is that his role will be that of someone who works behind the scenes while the Grand Admiral is in charge until he gets impatient and pretty much says "Oh for f**** sake, I'LL do it, then!"


3. No clue who that hooded figure could be. An inquisitor? A bounty hunter? No idea. I've been following the news and speculation on this pretty closely but, I've heard nothing about this.


4. Still some speculation that Jyn is Rey's mother. I see the resemblance and I guess that would be a big development but, I doubt they're putting that kind of info in an anthology movie. Nor should they. It's supposed to be its own story and it would be strange for people who saw Episode 7 and didn't see Rogue One for them to just go on about it in Episode 8 like everyone should know about it already.

[Mochi Lone Wolf]

Apr 7, 2016 17:07:12 GMT -5 xCompackx said:

Apr 7, 2016 16:25:52 GMT -5 Bub (BLM) said:

This looks really good. It's so refreshing to be getting all these Star Wars movies that actually look like you can physically touch the sets after the cartoony prequel trilogy.

It's funny you say that; I watched The Force Awakens again last night, and it kind of stunned me how great everything looked compared to the prequels. I know 1999-2005 was a long time ago (ha), but I feel like they could've made the sets look a bit more "real" even back then.

In their defense, CGI was quite new and they weren't the only ones to say "Oh look, this is really cool. Let's put it on everything." Hollywood treated CGI back then like a new toy they had just gotten for Christmas.


That's why a lot of movies from back then look much more dated than they should.

[xCompackx]

Apr 7, 2016 17:28:44 GMT -5 Mochi Lone Wolf said:

Apr 7, 2016 17:07:12 GMT -5 xCompackx said:

It's funny you say that; I watched The Force Awakens again last night, and it kind of stunned me how great everything looked compared to the prequels. I know 1999-2005 was a long time ago (ha), but I feel like they could've made the sets look a bit more "real" even back then.

In their defense, CGI was quite new and they weren't the only ones to say "Oh look, this is really cool. Let's put it on everything." Hollywood treated CGI back then like a new toy they had just gotten for Christmas.


That's why a lot of movies from back then look much more dated than they should.

Oh, I definitely understand. The ability to make almost anything you could imagine using CGI is amazing and I don't fault George Lucas for taking advantage of it the way he did. And I'll even concede that Episode III looks the best out of the three and feels like the movie where they seemed to find a decent balance of CG and physical stuff.

[A Platypus Rave is Correct]

Apr 7, 2016 15:32:06 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Also, the main character's name is Jyn Erso. I can't help but notice her name's similarity to Jan Ors, Kyle Katarn's partner in the Dark Forces/Jedi Knight series.

This was also my first thought

[The Captain]

While I love it when practical effects are used, CGI definitely has its uses within the Star Wars movies. Like I can't see the massive scale of Coruscant's ecumopolis being possible without it.

[Mochi Lone Wolf]

Apr 7, 2016 17:45:40 GMT -5 The Captain said:

While I love it when practical effects are used, CGI definitely has its uses within the Star Wars movies. Like I can't see the massive scale of Coruscant's ecumopolis being possible without it.

Going through the Clone Wars again, I forgot just how big Coruscant actually is. There's no city in the world you could use as a set to replicate something of that magnitude.

[Mighty Attack Tribble]

Forgive me for going off on a tangent here, but it's the second time today it's been used in this thread and it's pushed my button for a while.

Why do people insist on using "fan film" or "fan fiction" to describe a sequel or spinoff they don't personally care for? It just comes across like a petulant child throwing a hissy fit. It also makes no sense: these things are produced by the owners of the IP, made by professionals working within guidelines to fit in with the official canon. Nobody's saying you have to like it or watch it, but at least act like an adult when discussing it.

I've seen it used a lot in criticism of Star Wars ever since Disney bought the rights. Essentially "If Lucas didn't make it, it's a fan film." Horseshit. By that criteria any work of fiction not made by the original creators is fan fiction - including, for example, 99% of every comic book in existence.

There's a ton of movies I cannot stand from franchises that I do like, but I'd never be so petty as to describe them as "fan films." I think Batman vs. Superman is one of the worst adaptations featuring either character, but it's still a legitimate entry into the DC canon - albeit a bad one.

[Push R Truth]

I like Star Wars

It's pretty awesome

[Burst]

Apr 7, 2016 18:00:06 GMT -5 Mighty Attack Tribble said:

Forgive me for going off on a tangent here, but it's the second time today it's been used in this thread and it's pushed my button for a while.

Why do people insist on using "fan film" or "fan fiction" to describe a sequel or spinoff they don't personally care for? It just comes across like a petulant child throwing a hissy fit. It also makes no sense: these things are produced by the owners of the IP, made by professionals working within guidelines to fit in with the official canon. Nobody's saying you have to like it or watch it, but at least act like an adult when discussing it.

I've seen it used a lot in criticism of Star Wars ever since Disney bought the rights. Essentially "If Lucas didn't make it, it's a fan film." Horseshit. By that criteria any work of fiction not made by the original creators is fan fiction - including, for example, 99% of every comic book in existence.

There's a ton of movies I cannot stand from franchises that I do like, but I'd never be so petty as to describe them as "fan films." I think Batman vs. Superman is one of the worst adaptations featuring either character, but it's still a legitimate entry into the DC canon - albeit a bad one.

THANK YOU. What I also can't stand is how so many fanboys have gone from hating Lucas and everything he stood for, to basically being (to steal a Jericho-ism) sycophantic tapeworms with that "If Lucas didn't do it it doesn't count" mindset.

It's one of those things where I feel like if anybody but Disney had bought Lucasfilm, there wouldn't've been any complaints, but honestly, and you can tell from looking at how the Marvel movies have been handled too, DISNEY KNOWS WHAT THE f*** THEY'RE DOING. I'm very confident in saying that if Lucasfilm had to be sold, Disney was BY FAR the best possible buyer.

[A Platypus Rave is Correct]

Apr 7, 2016 17:42:38 GMT -5 xCompackx said:

Apr 7, 2016 17:28:44 GMT -5 Mochi Lone Wolf said:

In their defense, CGI was quite new and they weren't the only ones to say "Oh look, this is really cool. Let's put it on everything." Hollywood treated CGI back then like a new toy they had just gotten for Christmas.


That's why a lot of movies from back then look much more dated than they should.

Oh, I definitely understand. The ability to make almost anything you could imagine using CGI is amazing and I don't fault George Lucas for taking advantage of it the way he did. And I'll even concede that Episode III looks the best out of the three and feels like the movie where they seemed to find a decent balance of CG and physical stuff.

Well Episode 1 used a lot of practical effect and model works... and we still got terrible things like Awful puppet Yoda

[Mochi Lone Wolf]

Apr 7, 2016 18:44:52 GMT -5 Burst said:

Apr 7, 2016 18:00:06 GMT -5 Mighty Attack Tribble said:

Forgive me for going off on a tangent here, but it's the second time today it's been used in this thread and it's pushed my button for a while.

Why do people insist on using "fan film" or "fan fiction" to describe a sequel or spinoff they don't personally care for? It just comes across like a petulant child throwing a hissy fit. It also makes no sense: these things are produced by the owners of the IP, made by professionals working within guidelines to fit in with the official canon. Nobody's saying you have to like it or watch it, but at least act like an adult when discussing it.

I've seen it used a lot in criticism of Star Wars ever since Disney bought the rights. Essentially "If Lucas didn't make it, it's a fan film." Horseshit. By that criteria any work of fiction not made by the original creators is fan fiction - including, for example, 99% of every comic book in existence.

There's a ton of movies I cannot stand from franchises that I do like, but I'd never be so petty as to describe them as "fan films." I think Batman vs. Superman is one of the worst adaptations featuring either character, but it's still a legitimate entry into the DC canon - albeit a bad one.

THANK YOU. What I also can't stand is how so many fanboys have gone from hating Lucas and everything he stood for, to basically being (to steal a Jericho-ism) sycophantic tapeworms with that "If Lucas didn't do it it doesn't count" mindset.

It's one of those things where I feel like if anybody but Disney had bought Lucasfilm, there wouldn't've been any complaints, but honestly, and you can tell from looking at how the Marvel movies have been handled too, DISNEY KNOWS WHAT THE f*** THEY'RE DOING. I'm very confident in saying that if Lucasfilm had to be sold, Disney was BY FAR the best possible buyer.

Some of that is different critics looking at things from an outsider perspective who aren't keen on the new material. But, it also might have to do with people who aren't keen on Legends being phased out of canon. Lucas was at least somewhat sympathetic to fans and creators of the old EU and they're not happy with the fact that a "new" canon has been made.

It doesn't help that they've just recently made their own history of Malachor and what happened to turn it into the shithole it is now. The new origin, as of right now, has no mention of Revan or Kreia being involved. It also rules out Mandalorian involvement. It was purely Sith and Jedi. That's caused quite a stir in some circles.

Not saying I agree with that. I'm Just explaining.

[Mighty Attack Tribble]

Apr 7, 2016 18:50:33 GMT -5 A Platypus Rave is Correct said:

Well Episode 1 used a lot of practical effect and model works... and we still got terrible things like Awful puppet Yoda

Yoda, aged 880(ish):


Yoda, aged 900(ish):


For a species that lives that long, he aged the last couple of decades like Ric Flair between 2002-2004.

[xCompackx]

Apr 7, 2016 18:50:33 GMT -5 A Platypus Rave is Correct said:

Apr 7, 2016 17:42:38 GMT -5 xCompackx said:

Oh, I definitely understand. The ability to make almost anything you could imagine using CGI is amazing and I don't fault George Lucas for taking advantage of it the way he did. And I'll even concede that Episode III looks the best out of the three and feels like the movie where they seemed to find a decent balance of CG and physical stuff.

Well Episode 1 used a lot of practical effect and model works... and we still got terrible things like Awful puppet Yoda

Didn't they replace the puppet Yoda with the CG Yoda from II and III? I could be mistaken, but I thought they did that for the Blu-Ray release. And yeah... that puppet model sucked.