That is one of the strange things about Rogue One. Its considered a one-off movie but honestly because of the way it ends for our heroes, it plays better as a prequel to the original trilogy. Their sacrifices are given worth and meaning by virtue of what happens in that trilogy. Its really Star Wars 3.5 regardless of how they want to deny it as part of the “Skywalker” storyline. In fact there are even two Skywalkers in the movie. So in my world, its Star Wars 3.5
Or just cast Charles Dance, a Peter Cushing lookalike who is also an extremely charismatic, fantastic actor.
That said, I was happy to see the character back and given a prominent role - it added a lot to me, and I was fine with the CG - it may not have been completely life like, but given the nature of the franchise which has routinely used puppets and midgets in furry oneses, I’ve never expected complete realism from Star Wars.
The movie itself felt, to me, like fan fiction more than like Star Wars, but I loved the space fighting scenes and the last third of the movie in general - the direct ties to the original Star Wars, such as including unused scenes from the Red/Gold leaders, were great to see. I could have done without C3PO/R2 altogether, and I’m not sure anyone needed to see Walrus Man again (groan-inducing contrivance), but I also liked most of the new characters. I wish Ben Mendelsohn was given more to do, and that Forest Whitaker’s character didn’t seem to be included primarily for ancillary franchise material.
The rebel ground “incursion” consisting of a couple dozen guys seemed a little too flea-bitten to do anything other than get squashed in seconds by a single AT-AT, let alone the rest of the firepower there. But I’m grateful to Gary Whitta for getting an HK-47 character into a Star Wars movie.
After 3 movies, I don’t think Gareth Edwards will ever evolve into a good director, but he does have a great eye for visuals - I love some of the scenes in this movie (and in Godzilla). One of the main things I liked about this movie, however, is that it’s easily the most “adult” movie the franchise has made - and I don’t mean that because of the “war” focus (it’s Disney still, after all) - but in terms of really limiting the number of slapstick or cute little critters. I’d like to hope that eventually Disney will loosen the reins a bit and allow a broader range of movies, including an r-rated action movie, or just more grounded dramas like the Expanse, and while that certainly isn’t this movie, Rogue One represents at least a small step towards that.
For all my caveats, I’d be really happy if we had a movie of at least similar quality every year, as I do love Star Wars.
Maybe I’ll finally get around to watching Clone Wars and/or Rebels.
Is it bad that when I saw the stockier Rebel pilot bite it (and honestly everything was happening so fast that I may be misremembering) I was immediately reminded of the line from the Family Guy’s Blue Harvest episode, “They got Porkins!”?
Or the guy that actually played Tarkin in the movie under all that CG: Guy Henry.
And if they used a look alike, just as many people would be bitching about how it just didn’t look right. They were damned if they did, damned if they didn’t.
Nah. This is not the first nor the last time an actor or actress dies in the midst of a series run. It has happened a number of times before and no one freaked out due to lack of CGI.
Guy Henry looks enough like Cushing even without makeup that I think no one would’ve minded the replacement. Throw some gray hair dye on him, a few wrinkles, and just make sure to have someone say “Tarkin” a few times and people would’ve gone along with it.
This is literally what movies have done before and no one makes a big deal out of it. Sure, you get people comparing Richard Harris’ and Michael Gambon’s portrayal of Dumbledore, but no one sane found the movies unwatchable because of the change.
I actually loved the fact that they recreated CGI-Tarkin, and thought he looked pretty good, especially compared to Creepy Leia (where they obviously rushed it).
Well that’s a steaming pile of false equivalency.
You’re acting like we’ve never lost actors before and somehow everything fell apart when CGI wasn’t used. That’s not true. We’ve had recasts before and dealt with the absence of talent before… Why do you think otherwise?
Because its Star Wars and fans are extremely passionate and rather picky. The smallest of changes have been picked to death. Also a lot of what you are talking about are very small scenes almost cameos in nature, like Paul Walker in the F&F movie. This was a much larger role than usual in those circumstances. To be honest, when ever another actor takes on a very familiar role its gets scrutinized. I am just saying that people were going to jump on this no matter which way they went. Why do you think otherwise?
I wasn’t thinking of the ones that used CGI. I was thinking of the ones that didn’t… like Harry Potter. I don’t think you followed my argument very well. I am talking about not needing CGI.
I’d be inclined to agree. I also think, however, that sometimes limitations can impose creativity. Take this, for example. If they went with Guy Henry with some makeup, perhaps the limitations of that would force careful usage, shot composition, and lighting. Done well it could enhance the appearances.
It could have worked, or it could have failed.
I didn’t start watching them until my wife and I started dating in 2010, but I seem to recall that change was taken rather well? The beard certainly helps mask the differences, but the replacement was good enough that fans seem to accept it pretty well.
I’m going to 100% side with the idea that if they had just put another actor in the role, at best you’d get some blowhards talking about Cushing’s masterful performance in the original, and no one could equal it, or whatever. Nothing of any substance because most people would do the normal thing and accept the difference from a 1977 movie.
CG recreations of live actors interacting with normal people is still a hot topic, so instead of talking about how Guy Henry nailed Tarkin (or didn’t) we get endless blogs, hand-wringing, and discussion about the tech, how uncanny it was or wasn’t, the ethical issues, and (with unfortunate timing) what it all means for Carrie Fisher’s role in future movies.
Which, to be clear, were all issues that were going to come up at some point sooner rather than later. It was inevitable that such a usage of CG recreations would exist, so the ethical considerations that had been lurking just in the background now have their opening. Which is the curious thing about this, where does this all shake out?
I am following just fine thank you. I was and always have been talking about both situations and separating one from the other is pointless in this discussion. Anyway, what we got here is failure to communicate. And since you feel that we are not on the same wavelength, Ill just move on.
And I’m not thinking the Harry Potter fans are somehow less picky than the Star Wars fans. His replacement was received just fine. I think doing the thing in this case wouldn’t have caused much of a stir at all. Like @Telefrog said, some memories, nostalgia and some sadness and then we move on. The CGI for those two in this movie I think was a misstep… but it didn’t destroy the movie or anything. I just think they could have done better by making a different choice.
This is absolutely true, but I’ll bet you dollars to donuts the “jumping on” would have been lesser if they’d cast a new actor. Especially a favorite among us dorks like Charles Dance.
Gollum Tarkin was absolutely the worst choice they could have made and, to my mind, indicative of how out of touch this movie was with the Star Wars universe.
-Tom
Charles Dances has the look, the force of personality, but his voice is far too resonant to work for me. That would have bugged me for sure, as Cushing had a much higher pitch in his voice, a sharpness that is diametrically opposed to the heft that Dance has.
Not to say I wouldn’t have adjusted, but that would have been pretty jarring for me personally. Guy Henry has a voice that would fit far better though (and of the possible actors, would probably have been my pick for that reason).
None of this is to say that I disagree with your position! I’m inclined to agree that it would have been a far less upsetting move, one I doubt we are still talking about except in passing. But I do also think this was a discussion that was going to happen sooner rather than later, and I see no two ways around that. Whether it be Tarkin today, or some other beloved actor 5 years from now, someone was going to cross that Rubicon.
Now we just need to figure out where we stand, and if this becomes a common thing, or something that is roundly rejected in the future.
Well now that we have lost Carrie Fisher, how many people want to see CGI filling in all the gaps for the future movies or should we hope they find another way to do it? The future is like… tomorrow.