Rate the latest movie you've seen.

[caseagainstfaith]

Actually, the original Star Wars does have CGI: the Death Star schematics. It was a pioneering technology back then.

Okay, I stand corrected.  The original release was done primarily with "practical" effects (models) rather than CGI.  The Special Editions added a lot of CGI that many fans felt detracted rather than enhanced.

[Hydra009]

Rogue One. 8/10. A solid addition to the Star Wars universe.

Could have done without Jar Jar's hip-hop/disco cabaret dance scene, but nothing's perfect.

Don't even joke, man.

I'm freakin' pumped for Rogue One, but many Bothans will die if it's not excellent.

[Hydra009]

In 1997, 20 years after the original release, there was a "Special Edition" released.  Many fans did not like the changes in he Special Edition.

Han Solo shot first and he was the only one to shoot, dammit.

If I recall, I could be wrong, but I think the pre special editions were never released on DVD.

Unaltered versions of the original trilogy were released in 2006.

[Hydra009]

I just found out that the new Stargate reboot has been cancelled.  Although it's impossible to know for sure, I think we dodged a bullet.  It would allegedly undo all the previously established continuity (SG1/Atlantis/Universe), which I think would've been a big mistake.  Also, Emmerich hasn't exactly been putting out stellar work lately. *coughIndependenceDaycough*  The risk of a fanbase-destroying flop was just too great.

Instead, Roland Emmerich is working on Moonfall and then Dark Matter.  Who knows, that might be a good alternative for him.

[caseagainstfaith]

If some new edition of some storyverse comes out that is generally considered disappointing, I never think that it somehow damages the other works in that storyverse.  If a new Stargate comes out and I don't like, it doesn't go edit my SG1 DVDs... At any rate, the TV series were so different than the original movie that I don't even hardly consider them the same storyverse. Some people thought the original storyverse was superior.  But the TV version was more applicable to TV.  In the very first TV episode, when they landed on the other world, they were very cold for a while, like in the movie.  That never happened again.

[Hydra009]

Yeah, I mean it doesn't actually destroy the series, it doesn't come to your house and smash your DVDs or anything.  It just makes several TV series non-canon.  That's what happened to a lot of Star Wars stuff when Episode 7 came out.  Not necessarily terrible if the movie is a hit, but if it's a miss, it's horrific.  It'd be like a new Star Trek series that de-canonizes TNG/DS9/Voyager.  Borg?  Never happened.  Federation-Dominion War?  Never happened.  Species 8472?  Never happened.  It's pretty understandable how would rub some fans the wrong way.  Unless you can top what you're replacing, don't try it.  Instead, it's way better to just build off the existing continuity.  Fans tend to like that a lot more.

[SGOS]

I just found out that the new Stargate reboot has been cancelled.  Although it's impossible to know for sure, I think we dodged a bullet.  It would allegedly undo all the previously established continuity (SG1/Atlantis/Universe), which I think would've been a big mistake.  Also, Emmerich hasn't exactly been putting out stellar work lately. *coughIndependenceDaycough*  The risk of a fanbase-destroying flop was just too great.

Instead, Roland Emmerich is working on Moonfall and then Dark Matter.  Who knows, that might be a good alternative for him.

The studios got gun shy after the flop of Independence day apparently.
http://collider.com/stargate-reboot-cancelled/#dean-devlin

While I'm a big fan of Stargate SG1, its success puzzles even me.  There are some outrageous aspects about it that are so off the wall, like those primitive fire shooting stalf weapons used by an advanced race that also flew around in space ships that looked like pyramids.  It probably should have been too hokey for the series to gain traction.  Compared to Firefly, which didn't make it past the network hatchet committee for a second year, it mystifies me that the first two years of Stargate, marginal as they were, survived to go on for another 8 years.

After the second year, Stargate started to find it's pace, however.  The stories got better, along with the special effects, and everything about it just kept getting better with every year.  By the time it was cancelled, I was so committed, I could have stuck with it for I don't know how much longer.  Who knows?   I've just never got enough.

The third of the series just doesn't grab my attention, however.  I plan to get around to watching the whole thing sometime, but from what I've seen, it will be more like an obligation, rather than a high priority.

As good as SG1 was, a reboot is not a guaranteed success.  I think there might have been a certain tongue in cheek aspect about the original that has to be there.  If I'm expected to take the whole thing too seriously, it could very well fail.  I need the tongue in cheek to allow me to revel in the absurdity of god like beings pulling off a big scam on the entire universe, God like beings with glowing eyes that wear Egyptian armor that resembles a metal wolf outfit.  I mean, really!  That can only be done with a certain amount of tongue in cheek, and who ever does the reboot will have to have the right intuitive understanding of how that is achieved.  Otherwise, the whole thing might just come off as a concoction of silly things, and there was more to SG1 than just that.

[Hydra009]

Rogue One.  I highly recommend it.

It had a pretty jumbled beginning (and no title crawl, which was weird) and kind of a boring act 2, but man, act 3 blew me away.  The action scenes were amazing.  I'm talking reminiscent of the battle of Hoth.  Damn good stuff!  I left the theater wanting more!

One thing I really disliked about Episode 7 was that it was a retread of A New Hope.  Rogue One does not have that flaw.  We finally got a completely new Star Wars movie!

The previous movies felt like fantasy movies set in space. This movie was gritty, dark, and somewhat depressing.  And personally, I love this focus on regular humans instead of Jedi/Sith.  Honestly, I would love to see a Star Wars movie where no one is a Force-wielder, where it's just plain ol' everyday people and not space wizard-knights.

And while this movie didn't exactly have me rolling in the aisles, it had some funny quips.

I can't for the life of me remember most of the characters' names (I'd have to consult the wiki to tell you the main cast's names).  The character development was fairly weak, but they had their moments.  I really sympathized with what's-his-face and that guy with the gun, I just don't know much about either of them.  Jinn (djinn?) was pretty good.

One thing that kinda irritated me - and I dunno, I could've just been the theater - many of the characters speak extremely softly.  So softly that they're actually kinda hard to make out.  They talked in lowered voices like normal people and not in that super emotive way that actors typically deliver dialogue.  That's good, I guess?  *shrugs*  I dunno, it takes some getting used to.

All and all, it was great.

[spoiler]I dunno about you guys, but I'd much prefer a city-destroying superweapon than a planet-destroying Death Star.  From an Imperial perspective, it makes sense to not blow up Imperial worlds.  Dead worlds no longer pay taxes, export/import goods, produce war materials, recruit troops, etc.  It's like blowing up your own house.  Sure, you could do it, but why?

Historically, you build superweapons because you're fighting a war against a more or less evenly matched enemy and you can't take them out by conventional means.  That is most definitely not the case in Star Wars.  It's an extremely asymmetric matchup.

In that situation, success is decided more by developing better strategies than better weapons - work on beefing security, getting intel on the rebels, setting traps for rebel operatives, and launching assaults on rebel outposts.   You don't need to work on outgunning an enemy you already tremendously outgun.  You just need to bring the guns you already have to bear.

So instead of building superweapons, just take the fleet and bombard the holy hell out of any known rebel bases or storm them if you wish.[/spoiler]

[Hijiri Byakuren]

no title crawl

LITERALLY UNWATCHABLE!

[Hydra009]

LOL.  I didn't really matter that much to me.  If anything, it kinda highlights the fact that it's different from other Star Wars films.

[Hydra009]

Also, I really liked the ending.

Usually, I'm bagging on movies/shows for their terrible endings.  This one actually did it right, imho.

[Blackleaf]

I expect they decided not to do the title crawl because it was a spin off, rather than one of the numbered titles. I hope to see the movie sometime this week. I'm really looking forward to it.

[Mr.Obvious]

Rogue One. 

All and all, it was great.

I started typing my own review, but I misclicked and lost it all.
But I agree with about most of your review anyway.

[spoiler]I dunno about you guys, but I'd much prefer a city-destroying superweapon than a planet-destroying Death Star.  From an Imperial perspective, it makes sense to not blow up Imperial worlds.  Dead worlds no longer pay taxes, export/import goods, produce war materials, recruit troops, etc.  It's like blowing up your own house.  Sure, you could do it, but why?

Historically, you build superweapons because you're fighting a war against a more or less evenly matched enemy and you can't take them out by conventional means.  That is most definitely not the case in Star Wars.  It's an extremely asymmetric matchup.

In that situation, success is decided more by developing better strategies than better weapons - work on beefing security, getting intel on the rebels, setting traps for rebel operatives, and launching assaults on rebel outposts.   You don't need to work on outgunning an enemy you already tremendously outgun.  You just need to bring the guns you already have to bear.

So instead of building superweapons, just take the fleet and bombard the holy hell out of any known rebel bases or storm them if you wish.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I agree with you. And while I haven't dived into 'Legends' yet. (And probably never really will.) I've heard that Thrawn, a blue alien grand admiral in the Imperial fleet in the old Star Wars Canon, warned the Emperor about just that. He suggested, against the Emperor's wishes, that they'd spent all their time and resources in more star-destroyers etc. The galaxy is a bloody massive place and if you want to keep control, you need plenty of presence everywhere all the time. Betting it all on one superweapon, just because you think it's flawless, is taking a huge risk. Centralizing their power is what crippled the empire, because it allowed one strong strike from the rebels to be a catastropic blow, rather than an insignificant defeat.
Thrawn, and you, had the right of it.[/spoiler]

[Atheon]

The previous movies felt like fantasy movies set in space. This movie was gritty, dark, and somewhat depressing.  And personally, I love this focus on regular humans instead of Jedi/Sith.  Honestly, I would love to see a Star Wars movie where no one is a Force-wielder, where it's just plain ol' everyday people and not space wizard-knights.

I liked the grittiness and the fact that the warfare wasn't sanitized like in so much of Star Wars. It's as dark as Empire Strikes back, if not darker. I liked that the Rebel Alliance and the Empire were more complex than just being Pure Good vs. Pure Evil. If Phantom Menace was Star Wars for kids, this is Star Wars for adults.

I also loved the space battle (not a spoiler - all Star Wars has space battles). And I loved how it segues seamlessly into A New Hope.

Wasn't too keen on the music (I understand its production was rushed), but it worked very well in one of the key ending scenes. I didn't like the pacing at the beginning, and there was a particular scene that was completely unnecessary. The lack of an opening crawl was jarring.

I've seen it twice now, and rate it an 8.5 now. It's one of the top three Star Wars movies for me.

[spoiler]I was OK with the CGI of Tarkin, but I wish they didn't show closeups, because it was obvious something was wrong. They could have handled it better. The CGI of Leia, however, was done very well. [/spoiler]

[caseagainstfaith]

Personally, I just never felt engaged by Rogue One.  It has lots of cool individual pieces.  Tons of "Easter Eggs" for old Star Wars fans.  Gave a good explanation for what until now could have been considered a flaw in the original Star Wars story.  Had a more of a war movie feel with only a modest reliance upon the Force.  It looks incredible.  I personally was totally okay with some of the "controversial" CGI choices (which I won't elaborate to not spoil).  But, when I walked out of the theater, did I say, "wow! that really grabbed me!".  No, it did not.

It is clearly better than Episode 1 and II.  But a kick it the balls would be better than I and II.  I'd say I liked Episode III better than Rogue One.

But, I certainly see it had lots of good things going for it.  And I understand why a lot of people liked it.  It just kind of left me cold.  It was "meh".