PUTTING THE “WAR” IN “STAR WARS”

[defrog]

I have seen Rogue One. I will opinionize about it now. 

By now you know the deal: it’s the first Star Wars film that takes place outside the main Skywalker narrative, although not too far outside – it’s the story of how the Rebel Alliance acquired the blueprints for the Death Star. So on the most basic level, it’s yet another Star Wars prequel where you know the outcome. 

Which is why the most interesting thing about the film is the details – not just the story itself, but the characters and the overall approach, which is quite different from the main films. Others have already mentioned how it’s the first SW film to feel like an actual war film, and I think that’s true in the sense that it’s not just a bunch of battles between good guys and bad guys – it’s also acknowledges the moral ambiguities of warfare and the inherent political difficulties of running an underground resistance (two aspects that had been raised in various Extended Universe books in the past). 

A lot of that is reflected in the two main characters: criminal Jyn Erso, who initially sees the rebellion as just another fanatical political struggle (not least since she was raised by a rebel extremist), and Cassian Andor, the burned-out rebel spy and assassin starting to wonder if the ends really do justify the means. You don't usually get this kind of depth in a Star Wars film, though “depth” is relative here – this is a blockbuster franchise film, not a philosophical character study of political violence.

Which also means there’s plenty of action too, and here’s where it feels like a proper Star Wars film – shootouts, stormtroopers that can’t shoot straight, X-wing/TIE fighter dogfights, and of course a humorous droid (although K-2S0 – a reprogrammed Imperial droid – is more Marvin than Threepio). 

I do have some complaints: 

1. Again, it’s basically a story we already know the ending to, and which trades on the glories of past Star Wars films. I’m hoping future standalones tell original stories that don’t serve as key plot points for the main trilogies. 

2. I do think they went too far with the fan-service Easter eggs, which is basically another way of trying to convince the audience that this is part of the Star Wars universe. (I mean, did we really need a cameo from the guys who picked a fight with Luke in the cantina?) I know they’re meant for fans like me, but personally I find them distracting. 

3. While I fully understand bringing Grand Moff Tarkin into the plot, I’m sorry but the CGI to make Guy Henry look like Peter Cushing didn’t work for me. They came really close to making him lifelike, but he didn’t quite come alive to me. Surely effects makeup would have been more convincing – even if Guy Henry didn’t look 100% like Peter Cushing, he would have at least looked like a human instead of a CGI character. I will say that Leia looked more convincing (if you don’t look too closely), perhaps because she only shows her face for a few seconds and only says one word. 

For all that, I liked it a lot. It’s not quite as fun as The Force Awakens, and the third act has the most problems plotwise (particularly regarding that shield gate and the way the Empire stores its classified data), but it's a good film that shows the possibilities of what you can do with the Star Wars universe outside of the Skywalker/Jedi template. It’s also nice that they came up with a more-or-less plausible explanation for one of the most glaring plot points of Episode IV (i.e. the Death Star being that easy to blow up).

War is hell,

This is dF