I loved it. I am stating this now: I consider it up there with Empire Strikes Back and above Force Awakens and Return of the Jedi. I hope the coherent plot in Rogue One is a sign of an increase in the quality of plot writing in future Star Wars films (because, while I enjoyed Force Awakens, it really sucked in the coherent plot department).

I thought it was great. If I had to complain about one thing, it was Leia's CGI face at the end - that just looked creepily fake, like they ran out of money. Tarking was much better done.

And the scene with Darth Vader's one-man boarding action was worth the price of the ticket alone.

I think at least some of why Leia looked more fake to me than Tarkin (in most of his scenes anyway), was that Leia was much more brightly lit.

Also I thought Vader's castle was badassed. Mind you, why would you set up your home on Mustafar? That seems weird, living where you 'died'.

And while she didn't make an appearance, "General Syndulla" got name checked on Yavin. Was that Hera or her daddy?

I think they are referencing Hera. I can't see her father joining the alliance to that extent. His loyalty and primary concern as always been Ryloth, he's never really cared much about the rest of the galaxy. It's still possible but my money is on Hera there.

I liked it a lot- it's definitely an experimental film, which shows. How much Space Fantasy does the average citizen of the galaxy live? Quite a bit, but not as much as the other characters we've focused on. The fact that you can make a film that's a little light on the fantastical elements still work as a part of Popular Corporate Space Fantasy Franchise is pretty darn exciting. One could perhaps infer that Disney is perhaps testing the waters for a more Crime Drama/Pirate Romance-styled Han Solo film or a... what would they do with Obi-Wan? (Personally, I'm hoping for some kind of Yojimbo-informed ronin cop crime drama- just not in the "You're out of line, Kenobi! You're off the case! Take a vacation!" sense.)

Anyway, Rogue One. Going to go out on a line and say I liked both acts equally. The occupation, the hopelessness of the rebels' plight, the internal conflicts and isolation of various rebel cells, the fact that everyone considered getting out while they still could- that was really nice world building. Act two was a great ride with a lot of really excellent set pieces, and if I HAD to complain, it got a little busy and the pacing was a little break-neck. The film gains points for having all the actions of the different groups of characters re-converge on that ONE THING. It blends a little too nicely with the beginning of episode IV, but this is space fantasy we're talking about. Going to have to watch both movies back-to-back and see if any of the urgency of Rogue One informs Ep. IV in any interesting way. Other than that, it was good to see the Death Star used as a character. (People even talked about her behind her back!) The political intrigue inside the Empire was satisfying, and I like the further distinction between the Empire (being more political and having a greater diversity of interests) and the First Order. (being single-minded and rabidly fanatical)

(Edited for my third-grade vulgarity.) Sorry. :[

I liked it a lot- it's definitely an experimental film, which shows. How much Space Fantasy does the average citizen of the galaxy live? Quite a bit, but not as much as the other characters we've focused on. The fact that you can make a film that's a little light on the fantastical elements still work as a part of Popular Corporate Space Fantasy Franchise is pretty darn exciting. One could perhaps infer that Disney is perhaps testing the waters for a more Crime Drama/Pirate Romance-styled Han Solo film or a... what would they do with Obi-Wan? (Personally, I'm hoping for some kind of Yojimbo-informed ronin cop crime drama- just not in the "You're out of line, Kenobi! You're off the case! Take a vacation!" sense.)

Anyway, Rogue One. Going to go out on a line and say I liked both acts equally. The occupation, the hopelessness of the rebels' plight, the internal conflicts and isolation of various rebel cells, the fact that everyone considered getting out while they still could- that was really nice world building. Act two was a great ride with a lot of really excellent set pieces, and if I HAD to complain, it got a little busy and the pacing was a little break-neck. The film gains points for having all the actions of the different groups of characters re-converge on that ONE THING. It blends a little too nicely with the beginning of episode IV, but this is space fantasy we're talking about. Going to have to watch both movies back-to-back and see if any of the urgency of Rogue One informs Ep. IV in any interesting way. Other than that, it was good to see the Death Star used as a character. (People even talked about her behind her back!) The political intrigue inside the Empire was satisfying, and I like the further distinction between the Empire (being more political and having a greater diversity of interests) and the First Order. (being single-minded and rabidly fanatical)

(Edited for my third-grade vulgarity.) Sorry. :[

Please tell me you're just contrasting between films, and that the Farce Order does not actually appear in this movie...

Please tell me you're just contrasting between films, and that the Farce Order does not actually appear in this movie...

Of course not- don't worry. Just thought to make the comparison because it's interesting to me. I like that the Empire can go from being one kind of Pulp Adventure Bad Guy Organisation to a completely different Pulp Adventure Bad Guy Organisation when we're in a setting where people are fighting ANOTHER war of attrition with the scraps of the scraps left over from the previous age. Also, the tone of your question seems to imply you really don't care for the First Order. Out of curiosity, what is it you don't like about them?

Also I thought Vader's castle was badassed. Mind you, why would you set up your home on Mustafar? That seems weird, living where you 'died'.

And while she didn't make an appearance, "General Syndulla" got name checked on Yavin. Was that Hera or her daddy?

I think they are referencing Hera. I can't see her father joining the alliance to that extent. His loyalty and primary concern as always been Ryloth, he's never really cared much about the rest of the galaxy. It's still possible but my money is on Hera there.

Per Sam Witwer on last night's Order 66 podcast, it was indeed Hera being paged, and the VCX-100 is definitively the Ghost.

So I guess we "know" that Hera and the Ghost at least survive to the events of Rogue One?

And Chopper.

And Chopper.

Did I miss a Chopper sighting?

An interesting take on Tarkin, his recreation and what it could mean for the future of cinema:

Regardless of what you thought of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, even the most sycophantic fan would find it hard to applaud as the credits rolled, thanks to a final shot that surely ranks as the worst in the franchise. The shot in question is of Princess Leia, digitally de-aged into a whole-cloth CGI model. In concept, the shot is an overzealous wink to established canon; in execution, it centres post-film discussion on embarrassing digital doubles.

Leia’s only in one shot. Grand Moff Tarkin, however, is a fully-fledged supporting character. The boss of the Death Star was always going to be in Rogue One; the only question was how Lucasfilm would depict him. Would they recast the role, with someone inevitably lacking original actor Peter Cushing’s uniquely gaunt features? Put an actor in makeup, as with Wayne Pygram in Revenge of the Sith? Sadly, the means they selected - a distracting CGI double by Industrial Light & Magic - wasn’t the Grand Moff fans were looking for.

Many have invoked the spectre of Final Fantasy: Spirits Within when describing the digital Cushing. But we’ve never seen a computer-generated human being as realistic as Rogue One’s Tarkin. In stills, the illusion would be nearly flawless. I’ve even spoken to people who saw the film and didn’t realise Tarkin was a CGI creation, which frankly astounds me. However impressive the effects quality, it still bears the hallmarks of CGI, and though one does get somewhat used to Digital Tarkin, he never fully escapes the Uncanny Valley.

But that’s not the only reason Digital Tarkin is so off-putting. Peter Cushing died in 1994, and that raises some unsettling dilemmas.

Cushing’s digital resurrection feels, somewhat appropriately, like a weapons test. This is different to digital de-ageing, as in Tron Legacy and the Marvel films, where the performance is still fundamentally driven by the actor in question. And it’s different from Marlon Brando in Superman Returns, or Richard Burton in the War of the Worlds stage musical, which recreated earlier performances verbatim. This is the puppeteering of a deceased actor’s body and face by an altogether different person - in this case, English actor Guy Henry. Henry, who played Tarkin on set, has a similarly narrow face to Cushing, and could surely have performed in his own skin. But ILM thought differently, and now the window to digital resurrection, cracked ajar by Fast & Furious 7, has been flung wide open - likely permanently.

One issue this raises is that of likeness rights. California has a law that grants postmortem right of publicity for 70 years after an individual’s death, but Cushing, having died in the UK, isn’t covered by it. Lucasfilm secured his estate’s permission anyway, putting two citations in Rogue One’s closing credits. Variety even reports that Cushing’s former secretary and current estate manager was impressed and emotionally affected by the results, saying that “whoever put it together were absolutely fantastic.” So there’s no rights dispute here - but it still sits uncomfortably.

A thornier problem, one that’s more ethical than legal, involves passing one actor’s work off as another’s. I'm sure Guy Henry gave a solid performance, but he doesn’t appear in the movie. He won’t even get attention, as Andy Serkis frequently does, for creating a new and unique character - or even a new take on an old one. Rather, he was hired to impersonate Peter Cushing, and to channel that impersonation through a photorealistic replica of the deceased actor.

Does Henry’s performance reflect how Cushing would have approached the role? We’re meant to believe it does. Otherwise, why create the double? But Rogue One’s Tarkin is merely an imitation filtered through a facsimile. We see Peter Cushing, yet none of Cushing’s personal creative process was involved in building that performance. To me, that feels dishonest.

Looking forward, it’s hard to tell what the ramifications of Digital Cushing are. Luckily, the process is exorbitantly expensive, meaning it won’t be approached without due care and permission. But what happens if digital doubles somehow become more affordable (admittedly unlikely, given the human-hours required to build them)? Did Mon Mothma escape the CGI treatment solely because Genevieve O’Reilly played her in the prequels? Alden Ehrenreich has been cast as a young Han Solo, but would Lucasfilm just digitally de-age Harrison Ford if they could afford to do it at that scale? And will we ever see Guy Henry’s Tarkin?

“OMG, it looks so fake” is absolutely at the bottom of the list of issues raised by Rogue One’s visual effects. ILM managed to fool at least a few audience members with its fake Peter Cushing. Simultaneously inconspicuous and ostentatious, it’s a bold VFX move with big implications for the future. Who knows what happens next?

And Chopper.

Did I miss a Chopper sighting?

Nay saying rubbish imo. Same mentality that said

An interesting take on Tarkin, his recreation and what it could mean for the future of cinema:

Nay saying rubbish imo, same obtuse mentality of the music industry over Napster in the 90s. This tech is going to advance and be used more ubiquitously. It's also going to plummet in cost as the synergistic relationship of processing power increasing for decreasing cost, and the CGI tech being used more, will work hand in hand to lower costs,

Look at what animators can do an ipad and compare to a graphics machine of 15 years ago.

Anyone who works in the industry at the level of $200 million dollar budget movies knows academic debates over rights are easily settled with pen strokes, and as more content of zombie actors is made, live actors will find themselves negotiating over ever lower digital necromantic image use contracts.

This author comes off as a short sighted peevish idiot imo.

That is an interesting article. I personally didn't have a problem with CGI Tarkin. But going into it I knew that Cushing had passed and that his estate gave permission for his likeness. I am concerned about the things the article mentions. Would it have made a difference if Tarkin was given the Mothma treatment. I don't think so. I don't think it was necessary to CGI tarkin to the extent they did, especially since they didn't take that approach with Mothma.

Would I be excited about the Han Solo movie if Ford was cast and digitially de-aged? NO WAY! Ford is a complete;y different actor today then he was back then and I think that would translate poorly to the Han Solo we expect to see in the stand alone movie.

An interesting take on Tarkin, his recreation and what it could mean for the future of cinema:

This is very different. Napster was used to bypass distribution rights and royalty payments. It had nothing to do about the "art." In this case, the article's most prominent point is that in California, when you die, your family (or estate) loses all control of your likeness. The article is talking about the performance more than the distribution even though they are closely tied. Napster, resulted in artists gaining more control of their art, which is great. This article points out that for California resident actors and actress, once they die, anyone can take their likeness and impose their own interpretation of that person's art. I think that is valid concern. The fact is that in R1 we saw Cushing's character but not Cushing's acting. We saw an interpretation of Cushing acting.

Nay saying rubbish imo, same obtuse mentality of the music industry over Napster in the 90s. This tech is going to advance and be used more ubiquitously. It's also going to plummet in cost as the synergistic relationship of processing power increasing for decreasing cost, and the CGI tech being used more, will work hand in hand to lower costs,

I'm talking about the narrow mindedness that any sort of civil legal issues are actually going to impede tech that will result in people making huge sums of money, not the specific details. The folly of the music industry's attitude about digital music was laid bare, this is no different.

The difference is, this is like taking someone's voice after they die, sampling it, and creating "new performances".

Imagine if any recording studio or label could, once a singer is dead, "digitize" their voice and release "new songs" as "sung" by that artist. Roy Orbison, Jim Morrison, Janice Joplin, whoever, a total free-for-all.

Or hey, what if, once an author died, anyone could have a ghost writer do up some books, and then slap the name of the dead author on the books?

I'm talking about the narrow mindedness that any sort of civil legal issues are actually going to impede tech that will result in people making huge sums of money, not the specific details. The folly of the music industry's attitude about digital music was laid bare, this is no different.

Gotchya.

I'd be a little surprised if "right of publicity" allowed you to make new works using a likeness, rather just allowing you to use it on publicity.

The difference is, this is like taking someone's voice after they die, sampling it, and creating "new performances".

Imagine if any recording studio or label could, once a singer is dead, "digitize" their voice and release "new songs" as "sung" by that artist. Roy Orbison, Jim Morrison, Janice Joplin, whoever, a total free-for-all.

Or hey, what if, once an author died, anyone could have a ghost writer do up some books, and then slap the name of the dead author on the books?

Or getting Bogart and Cagney to shill Diet Coke?

I can kind of see the point - getting permission like they did with the Cushing estate (and presumably Fisher was okay with her appearance, too) is fine, but putting words in the mouths of dead people without their consent is a couple of steps down the road to creepy.

Now, that's not what happened here, but it does open the door to doing that down the road - not just in Star Wars, but in media in general. I think people are wise to be wary or cautious of the technology.

(Me, I'd much rather have my dead stars be replaced by Chiropractors who keep a cape over their faces at all times)

Actually, I think I misunderstood the Right of Publicity in California. I think State Law protects the use of the deceased likeness for 70 years. The article pointed out rightly, that because Cushing was born a UK resident, Cali law didn't apply BUT it didn't matter as they sought out and received Cushing's estate's permission.

So, really, this aspect of argument would depend on California's prudence is upholding the law... which could be a whole new horrible discussion, lol.

With that said, the general premise of creating a dead actor's performance versus simply re-casting is very much debatable.

This author brings up legal issues that don't matter and points out deals were cut with Cushing's estate. When we are dead, we are dead, period. The legal/money issues will all be handled by the lawyers and accountants to the living people's satisfaction.

To talk about ethics makes me want to vomit. They spend $200 million making these movies, they're going to pocket probably a $1 to $2 billion on the movie ticket sales alone. That's like 1/6th the GDP of North Korea where the common folk have dietary staples of grass and tree bark. Ethics? Spare me. Hollywood, performers and producers alike are about money, period.

The author is nothing more than a dim short sighted angry fan boy. Star Wars was, and should always be, about pushing SFX tech.

To talk about ethics makes me want to vomit. They spend $200 million making these movies, they're going to pocket probably a $1 to $2 billion on the movie ticket sales alone. That's like 1/6th the GDP of North Korea where the common folk have dietary staples of grass and tree bark. Ethics? Spare me. Hollywood, performers and producers alike are about money, period.

But why shouldn't ethics figure play a part of this? Yes, Hollywood is a business and all they care about is if it makes them money, which is why we see nothing but remakes, sequels and franchises - but shouldn't we demand ethics in our art?

A thornier problem, one that’s more ethical than legal, involves passing one actor’s work off as another’s. I'm sure Guy Henry gave a solid performance, but he doesn’t appear in the movie. He won’t even get attention, as Andy Serkis frequently does, for creating a new and unique character - or even a new take on an old one. Rather, he was hired to impersonate Peter Cushing, and to channel that impersonation through a photorealistic replica of the deceased actor.

Does Henry’s performance reflect how Cushing would have approached the role? We’re meant to believe it does. Otherwise, why create the double? But Rogue One’s Tarkin is merely an imitation filtered through a facsimile. We see Peter Cushing, yet none of Cushing’s personal creative process was involved in building that performance. To me, that feels dishonest.

It's interesting that this topic comes up with a Star Wars film.

Darth Vader was physically portrayed by David Prowse... James Earl Jones did the voice... and stuntman/fencing coach Bob Anderson was in the suit for the lightsaber fights, as Prowse kept breaking the props.