Behold a new droid:

Also, is it just me or have I seen this design before. . . .?

Well, that washes the taste of that horrible Ghostbusters remake out my mouth!

I hate that poster. It makes it seem like the death star is many times bigger than a planet. Also, the rebels are just running toward stormtroopers shooting at them. I've seen many fan made posters for Rogue One that are way better, this one gives me a bad feeling about this movie.

It's like a bad photoshop fan made poster of stormtroopers on vacation.

I didn't want to be the one to say it, but yeah, the "run straight into gunfire!" Hollywood combat is disappointing.

I hate that poster. It makes it seem like the death star is many times bigger than a planet. Also, the rebels are just running toward stormtroopers shooting at them. I've seen many fan made posters for Rogue One that are way better, this one gives me a bad feeling about this movie.

It's like a bad photoshop fan made poster of stormtroopers on vacation.

And yet an asterisk with * Not A Moon is Not To Scale might have been a bit on the nose. It's a poster. It's meant to be impressionistic.

There's something physical lacking about how the actors move and the stunts are done, an absence of intensity. It's like they know they're in a movie. Even old Harrison Ford conveys more effort. They should have all gone to boot camp with Tom Cruise or something...not really a fan of Cruise, but he brings a physicality to the screen like almost nobody else.

There's something physical lacking about how the actors move and the stunts are done, an absence of intensity. It's like they know they're in a movie. Even old Harrison Ford conveys more effort. They should have all gone to boot camp with Tom Cruise or something...not really a fan of Cruise, but he brings a physicality to the screen like almost nobody else.

Agreed. Tom Cruise: five-time winner of the "Universally Grudging Admiration" Award.

There's something physical lacking about how the actors move and the stunts are done, an absence of intensity. It's like they know they're in a movie. Even old Harrison Ford conveys more effort. They should have all gone to boot camp with Tom Cruise or something...not really a fan of Cruise, but he brings a physicality to the screen like almost nobody else.

How about Matt Damon in the Borne movies?

Who's this fella I wonder? Anyone know?

I hate that poster. It makes it seem like the death star is many times bigger than a planet.

You do realize that Darth Vader was not a gigantic head larger than the Death Star, right?

I didn't want to be the one to say it, but yeah, the "run straight into gunfire!" Hollywood combat is disappointing.

And yet, sometimes it really happens .

I hate that poster. It makes it seem like the death star is many times bigger than a planet. Also, the rebels are just running toward stormtroopers shooting at them. I've seen many fan made posters for Rogue One that are way better, this one gives me a bad feeling about this movie.

It's like a bad photoshop fan made poster of stormtroopers on vacation.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question491.htm

I hate that poster. It makes it seem like the death star is many times bigger than a planet.

You do realize that Darth Vader was not a gigantic head larger than the Death Star, right?

I didn't want to be the one to say it, but yeah, the "run straight into gunfire!" Hollywood combat is disappointing.

And yet, sometimes it really happens .

It also pre-supposes you know how big the planet is that they are standing on when viewing it.

Who's this fella I wonder? Anyone know?

Wampa Fett?

Who's this fella I wonder? Anyone know?

Google Image Search returned this:

Mind you, I'm not actually defending the poster. When Star Wars starts using sh*tty photoshop work on its posters instead of stuff like the Hildebrandt Brothers or Drew Struzan you know that the art of the movie poster is well and truly dead.

I didn't want to be the one to say it, but yeah, the "run straight into gunfire!" Hollywood combat is disappointing.

And yet, sometimes it really happens .

First, that occurred in the 1860s... with muzzle-loading rifles and muskets...

Second, it failed. Miserably. Because of dying.

I didn't want to be the one to say it, but yeah, the "run straight into gunfire!" Hollywood combat is disappointing.

And yet, sometimes it really happens .

First, that occurred in the 1860s... with muzzle-loading rifles and muskets...

Second, it failed. Miserably. Because of dying.

You DO know that most, if not all, of the protagonists in this film are going to die, right? They're an infiltration team, never meant to be out in the open. If they ARE out in the open, things have gone horribly wrong. Charging the opposition is probably their best, only hope.

Also: STAR WARS. Remember A New Hope? 30-odd starfighters against Galactus -- sorry -- the Death Star?

I didn't want to be the one to say it, but yeah, the "run straight into gunfire!" Hollywood combat is disappointing.

And yet, sometimes it really happens .

First, that occurred in the 1860s... with muzzle-loading rifles and muskets...

Second, it failed. Miserably. Because of dying.

It works.

A soldier who led a bayonet charge across 260ft of open ground through Taliban gunfire has been given the Military Cross.

Brian Wood was just a young lance corporal at the time when he dismounted his thin-skinned vehicle amid withering enemy fire, and followed his commander's order to fix bayonets.

The order came from from Sgt. Dave Falconer, reports The Sun and BBC , who later said he was proud of the actions from his men that day.

The date was May 14, 2004, and Falconer, along with Wood, Private Anthony Rushforth, Sgt Chris Broome, and privates John-Claude Fowler and Matthew Tatawaqa, were speeding down a roadway 150 miles south of Basra in Southern Iraq. They were on their way to relieve fellow comrades caught in an ambush when they were caught in one of their own.

The fire was so close and at such an angle (a close quartered, L-shaped ambush) that the only way to defeat it "was to put boots on the ground," said Falconer.

So he immediately ordered his men to dismount and fix bayonets.

"When the order came to dismount and attack, it was just like what we've done dozens of times in training," said Rushforth to the Sun. "We were pumped up on adrenaline — proper angry. It's only afterwards you think, ‘Jesus, I actually did that.'"

The six soldiers charged across open ground, pausing only to throw themselves to the ground to avoid enemy fire, and return a bit of their own. In a few small sprints, they had traversed to the first trench, into which they immediately leapt, coming face to face with the enemy.

The fighting was close quarters and intense.

"Basically, it was short, sharp and furious," said Wood, who was later awarded the Military Cross for actions that day.

Cleared, they headed to the next, and the next, fighting, which took almost two hours, and the lives of approximately 30 Mahdi army soldiers of Muqtada Al-Sadr.

A few continued to hold out, holed up in a bunker, until a British tank arrived to level it.

The last time the Army used bayonets in action, The Sun noted, was when Scots Guards assaulted Argentinian positions in 1982.

* gap between uses of 22 years -- 1982, to 2004. The 1982 instance was in the Falklands, and achieved mixed results, and included troops taking cover and prone positions in succession, not the entire unit charging madly.

* if you notice in the description of the 2004 incident you posted, again, they actually took cover or went prone several times to avoid enemy fire, during that charge.

* both instances were shock actions against either irregular or low-morale troops.

First, that occurred in the 1860s... with muzzle-loading rifles and muskets...

Second, it failed. Miserably. Because of dying.

* gap between uses of 22 years -- 1982, to 2004.

* if you notice in the description, they actually took cover or went prone several times to avoid enemy fire, during that charge.

Which means absolutely nothing. There are plenty of reasons for going head first at an enemy. It's a tactic also still taught in boot camp which I'm sure you're aware of with your prior military experience....

* gap between uses of 22 years -- 1982, to 2004.

* if you notice in the description, they actually took cover or went prone several times to avoid enemy fire, during that charge.

Which means absolutely nothing. There are plenty of reasons for going head first at an enemy. It's a tactic also still taught in boot camp which I'm sure you're aware of with your prior military experience....

Sure, it means nothing, if you want to stretch reality in an attempt to justify the standard ignorance of Hollywood when it comes to all things military.

(See also, the high praise that Hurt Locker received in the movie industry for its "grit" and "realism", despite being regarded as a sick joke by people in the military EOD business.)

The mission always comes first. Sometimes necessity dictates there is no alternative. I'm not defending Hollywood. I am simply pointing out there are plenty of reasons why there might be no choice and it has to happen.

I'm pretty sure no one on Omaha Beach was thrilled with the battlefield. They did what had to be done.