LOL. Well, you are entitled to that opinion, for sure. However, it carries about all the validity that your absurd last sentence gives it.

I fail to see how it's any more absurd than your own opinions, or the notion that we don't "get" the movie because we're just not looking at it the right way. I'm an adult with a functional brain, thanks. Your opinions as an amateur movie critic carry with them all the validity of a man who doesn't know that full stops go inside the quotation marks. Might want to hone your craft, chief.

Amateurs don't get paid. I do. It's why I got to see it before you, lol. But being a critic isn't some kind of hallowed ground. The RedLetterMedia guys are critics. Very smart ones at that. But their assessment of this movie was way off base, too. The difference between my opinion and yours is that its rooted in the assessment of the film's construction, rather than how it made you feel. If Rogue One was tonally too dark, paced too slowly, or the CGI Tarkin bothered you, or just plain didn't capture your interest, that's a valid way to feel. Nobody has to like Rogue One. But if you're taking exception to the way the characters are presented in the film, that's just demonstrating an ignorance of how ensemble war films handle their characters. And calling Rogue One "terrible" and more absurdly, saying it was on par with the prequels is the kind of pointless hyperbole that will get you rightfully sneered at.

Sorry you're a snotling and not a Brainboy. Especially since you only seem to know American scholarly style guides, and think they are definitive for usage. Of course, your entire pattern of behavior in this thread is puerile enough that you'd think that pedantry was an effective trump card, lol. However, there's no need to get snotty about it. If you don't understand why Rogue One's characters aren't more heavily developed, you don't get it. That's not some kind of opinion. It's just the truth. The reality is the movie already runs over two hours in length. It would be crazy the kind of ponderous monstrosity that would have resulted if all of you critics had gotten a film made your way, lol. Another half an hour spent fleshing out the back stories of characters for no reason just so you could "care about them" since I bet you're still wondering what the Bear Jew did before the war, and what Caparzo's favorite food was growing up in an Italian immigrant family.

Then maybe you should try writing like a professional, "lol." Kind of hard to take you seriously as things stand.

Justifying the decisions they made still doesn't make it less of a terrible film. What's that expression? "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining."

WonderW: Do you like sex and travel? Yes? Well why don't you just do us all a favour and **** off.

WonderW: Do you like sex and travel? Yes? Well why don't you just do us all a favour and **** off.

Your obsession is cute.

Not as much as your lack of irony.

Just got back from my 3rd viewing (and a half, I managed to fall asleep during an earlier viewing - nothing to do with the movie, totally to do with my work schedule/personal fortitude), and still love it. As someone else posted, I have seen this now almost as many times as I've seen TFA (twice in the cinema, twice since owning it), and think this holds up way stronger in just about every respect.

There's obviously no way to know at this point how well this'll hold up in 10-30 years but given that my initial reaction to a SW movie in the cinema has pretty much reflected how I come to feel about them over time (unlike other movies that I've either enjoyed the first time around and then soured on or, conversely, have come to appreciate on later viewings), I personally look forward to repeat viewings of this.

Not as much as your lack of irony.

I guess not liking a movie and not liking a person are the same thing after all. You're mistaken about one thing, though; I find it deeply ironic (and gratifying) that we've gone full circle now and you still haven't learned a thing.

Oh, I've learnt plenty mate.

Nothing frustrates a troll more than realising that nobody cares enough about their 'opnions' to respond.

I feel like... yeah, I feel like sharing a contrary opinion is still more productive than taking petty potshots at a forum member just because you don't like them. Did either of you have something genuine to contribute, or are you content to indiscriminately throw the word 'troll' around?

My sincerest apologies to everyone else for having to bear witness to such needless antagonism. It seems like the FFG forums aren't the safest place to offer an alternate viewpoint.

What happened to this thread?

I'm out of it for a while and everyone gets delusions of grandeur!

I feel like... yeah, I feel like sharing a contrary opinion is still more productive than taking petty potshots at a forum member just because you don't like them. Did either of you have something genuine to contribute, or are you content to indiscriminately throw the word 'troll' around?

My sincerest apologies to everyone else for having to bear witness to such needless antagonism. It seems like the FFG forums aren't the safest place to offer an alternate viewpoint.

You're the only one acting out of line. Please don't apologize for others. Only apologize for your own low brow actions. Just save face and drop it. You look so foolish carrying on and on.

Ah, I see. Even taking the high road is frowned upon around here. You guys really are a special sort.

Maybe we can change the name of the thread to Rogue One Lovers Thread . That way 'trolls' like me know to share our unwanted thoughts and feelings elsewhere. Fly casual, y'all.

Rogue One was an enjoyable film but it still has fundamental issues from a film craft standpoint. Even if you make up an some fallacy (or perhaps fantasy) about it following some war movie archetype, plenty of war movies and shows have made their characters more compelling in less time. Band of Brothers was a series, but showed how to introduce and have a complete arch for a group of characters in half the time

Band of Brothers was 10+ hours long.

Rogue One was an enjoyable film but it still has fundamental issues from a film craft standpoint. Even if you make up an some fallacy (or perhaps fantasy) about it following some war movie archetype, plenty of war movies and shows have made their characters more compelling in less time. Band of Brothers was a series, but showed how to introduce and have a complete arch for a group of characters in half the time

Band of Brothers was 10+ hours long.

The series was but what he is talking about is the part where the main characters were introduced which to be exact the older veterans were introduced right in the first part of the series. They just were not matched with the actor who portrayed them until the end.

But on another topic to be honest Movies now are the shorter stories when it comes to TV broadcasting thanks to streaming and On Demand. I remember shows back in the 90s like TNG where you had a story arc that may last not even a hour. 30-40 minuets plus commercials. The longest story arc is about an hour and a half with a 2 part season finale that had the to be continued as you get the reruns from the last episode before the 2nd half was on broadcast. In the 90s movies had the longer story arc with a 3 hour movie or even a trilogy of movies for a story arc of 9 hours like Lord of the Rings. Move to HBO and on demand where we have shows like Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad. In those shows the story arc last the entire season. However if you missed an episode you could just watch it On Demand so you won't be lost on the next one. When the Season Finale is over, instead of watching reruns one at a time each week you could now binge watch the entire season or even the past seasons. So what I am trying to get at is now the movies have the shorter story arcs thus they need to be crammed with more action and less filler, unfortunately a lot of plot and character development is in the filler.

Yes, I watched the first episode of Band of Brothers the other day. The only two characters with any meaningful character development were incompetent drill sergeant Ross Gellar and competent rookie Nicholas Brody. Pretty much everyone else in the show was relegated to "oh look, it's Dexter Fletcher! or "Hey, that's Simon Pegg!"

It is unfortunate that a discussion about a space fantasy film has to turn hostile.

Takes at least two to make it hostile: anyone pinning this argument entirely on WAAAAGH needs to take a look at themselves too.

Yes, I watched the first episode of Band of Brothers the other day. The only two characters with any meaningful character development were incompetent drill sergeant Ross Gellar and competent rookie Nicholas Brody. Pretty much everyone else in the show was relegated to "oh look, it's Dexter Fletcher! or "Hey, that's Simon Pegg!"

You must not have seen the Bastogne episode about the doctor. It was rather tragic and one of the better episodes.

And......Breakfast.

Did you idiots really spend eight pages trying to figure out if "Rogue One bad" is a minority opinion?

My biases lead me to believe that Rogue One was one of the best Star Wars movies, imho. Also, I am very biased towards breakfast meats, sausage in particular.

One point I would like to add is that the modern marketing model now with Star Wars is to add a lot of the filler/fluff of background stories in Disney's alternate media forms. Rogue One has tie-ins in books, comics, cartoons, web releases, etc. It's almost required now to have to participate in all the platforms to get the full story. A bit sneaky and fun yet profitable, no?

This might help some if you feel like reading a bit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases