Reminded me of SyFy trying to do their own Firefly knockoff. Jesus, the blind Asian mystic guy is almost a direct copy of that alien warrior character from Space Rangers: Fort Hope.

Here I was hoping that they would have learned their lesson from Force Awakens and make a woman main character have some dimension to her with actual flaws and chance of failure instead of another effortlessly perfect at everything Mary Sue. Then 3:45 happened.

Just a bunch of little things that bugged me. What's with the new movies giving all the imperial commanders perma-pouty-scowly face, like they were posing for Evil Tiger Beat? What happened to stiff, yet ruthless British fops?

Every outdoor scene has to have tons of dirt flying up or water spraying around or wind flapping about, like they're constantly trying too hard to distance themselves from the static green screen sets of the prequels. It got to the point it was all distracting you from the scenes themselves.

A few spinoff things were great.

'Dark forces' game
'Tie fighter' game
'Knights of the old republic' bioware game (was frickin' amazing)
Gennedy Tartakovskys 'Clone Wars' cartoon series

Star Wars is more of a time setting rather than a place, kind of like a WWII movie. You could make a movie about Hitler that takes place during WWI but that's kind of confusing to the general public. Same goes for Star Wars, you can make a movie about Darth Vader in the clone wars but most people aren't going to care because X-WINGS!!!

Soda shaming

It's so weird how angry people get at the very concept of film criticism. Like, did you watch Siskel and Ebert growing up and punch a hole in the wall at the thought of these two GROWN-ASS MEN sitting aroind and critiquing new releases in a fun and informative way?

SDC, it's possible to critique film critics who are clearly talented yet spend all their prodigious talents riffing on and dissecting low-hanging fruit like kid's space fairytales or the latest capeshit offering; and all to bump up the clicks.

SDC, comparing a bunch of clods whose basis for their film criticism is mere elementary school level pattern recognition to two highly competent professional writers for the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun Times, one of which won a goddamn Pulitzer, is a prime example of a false equivalence.

You seriously believe the group that made their name doing the most painfully thorough, point-by-point critique of Star Wars everdecided to do a complete 180 because...there was a South Park episode three months ago? Is that your insane argument?

I think nothing proves how crappy this movie is than looking at how insane the defenses are.

I saw Rogue One before watching any of these or even really reading anything about it online, so the movie was legitimately all new for me (sans having seen the trailers). Having seen it, I can't understand either the ludicrously over the top praise it's getting, nor the incredibly derisive scorn it's getting either.

It's a perfectly fine, decent little Star Wars movie that nicely takes place just enough outside of the official canon to be interesting, but links into it enough to be entertaining. It's just a well made space adventure thing, kinda reminded me of some kind of 80s b-movie you might find on VHS, only with a much higher budget and production design. I mean, yes, it is a bit fanservice-y to the point where it is clearly patting "geek culture" idiots on the head so they can get on twitter and talk about OMG TEH FEELZ, but I mean..it's fucking Star Wars...since when has that ever not been the case?
All that said, like Fantastic Four, you can really feel where the re-shoots and studio-mandated changes were made and how they made it a worse movie. It'll never happen, but it's nice to imagine the home video release might include a "director's cut" that supposedly made the Disney higher-ups think it was too dark.
Oh and in regards to Tough Bouncer's comment: DEAR GOD, YES. The film's score is total shite. Paying homage to John Williams is one thing...cribbing virtually his entire SW score and then cranking the volume to 11 for EVERY SCENE TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THE DRAMA is fucking ludicrous.

THey aren't saying Force Awaken sucks, they flat out siad the only real fault with TFA was that the plot was REALLY similar to ANH to the level that it's noticible. They say right in this that the characters were well done, and there were genuinely emotional scenes, which are enough for a pass from them as a good movie

Also; no one else see the irony of the Plinkette review bashing force awakens for being too much a remake/fan wank, and then them whining about rogue one not being enough of a remake/fan-wank?

Bodhi was the only character is that felt fleshed out but his story arch was messed up due to his scenes being poorly edited and that shoe horned monster interrogation.

Also stop with the monster crap, I know there was at lest one monster fight in the old movies but they were also some of the dumbest parts of those films.

I saw it. I saw it only having seen the first teaser trailer once and knowing nothing else about it. (I think I knew it involved deathstar plans)

I enjoyed it. It had some really stupid parts, the editing was shit, which might go a ways to explaining said stupid parts (lack of reasons for why characters are told to do things, or the reasons are shit).

I liked the characters, but I dont mind filling in the blanks for what I choose to call "subduedly written" characters. Anybody saying they're underwritten is also correct.

I want to watch it again. Partly, so I can more clearly appreciate how it could have been better, that being said, I still want to watch it again.

It's worth ten dollars for the action and things going boom. go see it in a theater.

It was better on a second viewing because, once your head wraps around the crappy editing/weird pacing, there is so genuinely good writing and subtle characterization.

The music was the shittest, true.