Ivo-goji wrote:Zarm wrote: Because I don't recall any airstrikes against civilian targets or assassins that took out innocent contacts.
There were definitely civilians on board the two Death Stars (the same kind of civilians they killed on Eadu, in fact), and the operation in RotJ was no defensive gesture. True, Cassian's backstabbing is exceptionally cruel, but the whole point of his character is him realizing that the Rebellion can't be fought like this and they have to draw the line somewhere.
Both Death Stars were legitimate military targets, however. The Empire's choice to place civilians aboard doesn't make them civilian targets. And both were destroyed in self-defense, as they were actively targeting the Rebellion. Yes, the second Death Star was targeted pre-emptively; but it was also a military weapon that would be invincible when completed. It was a very different situation than 'find and assassinate Galen Erso' or 'call in an airstrike to assassinate Galen Erso.' One could argue that the second Death Star attack had the hopes of assassinating Palpatine in the process, however, he was also a secondary target and potential war-ending goal, whereas Galen was a potentially-friendly asset for whom there was already a planned extraction mission that a shadow-group within the Rebellion was actively sabotaging with a secret assassination mission. Even with the most moral-equivalency interpretation, Rogue One still represented a new level.
Ivo-goji wrote:In fact, I'm having a hard time recalling any assassination missions at all. Han was the morally edgy character, and even the majority of what he did could be classed in self-defense.
Lando had some moral edginess. So did Luke for that matter.
There was never any illusion in the OT that an armed resistance against the Empire could be carried out only in self-defense. The Rebels were always willing to eliminate Imperial collaborators if they felt it was necessary; the fact that most deaths we see onscreen are only Stormtroopers does not make this any less true.
Lando had a moral edge as a character- but not once he became a member of the Rebellion. He left all that behind. Luke, arguably did; that scene has been hotly debated. However, my point was not that the Rebellion could only act in self-defense; merely that self-defense was a plausible justification for even most of Han's 'questionable' actions.
The Rebellion obviously waged an offensive guerrilla war wherever they could. That included strikes on Imperial military targets. Willingness to eliminate 'collaborators' outside of those military targets is unproven and, i'd contend, untrue. Outside of Rogue One's revisionist history, the Rebellion did not engage in civilian strikes, terrorist activities, or other actions outside the rules of war. They didn't employ assassins, they didn't have secret assassination orders (the closest coming with Jan Ors and Kyle Katarn, but in that case only if one of their
own number proved traitorous and betraying the rebellion was he to be taken out)... they simply weren't that kind of organization.
Ivo-goji wrote:The Rebellion seen in Rogue One was at its most vulnerable point, while the Rebellion in OT was mounting a strong string of victories against the Empire. They were in a desperate situation before they acquired the Death Star plans, when the Empire seemed unbeatable and their cause hopeless. Jyn, Cassian, and the rest of the Rogue One team had to learn to put aside their differences to achieve their common goal, and this is true of the Rebellion as a whole. When Rogue One undertook the mission to Scarif, they thought they might be on their own, but Commander Raddus and the others rallied behind them. The Rebel Alliance in the OT is more unified and confident in its actions than the Alliance in Rogue One because this is the story of how they reached that point- they'd overcome their darkest hour, they were no longer making decisions based on fear and desperation, but were grounded on hope.
The Rebellion in the OT is in desperate straights continually. They've also existed for over a decade. Thanks to in-canon Rebels, they've been actively fighting Imperial targets as cells for years, as a unified Rebel Alliance for at least two. There's no excuse for them to be squabbling saplings with no backbone and a surfeit of political infighting. If this was set just post-ROTS, maybe; but by now, the Rebellion's got their act together. Requiring a movie protagonist to give these people the gumption (or hope) they need to put aside petty differences and stop making foolish, cautious choices based on fear diminishes their character. The rebellion was an organization of committed individuals who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps to oppose the Empire because they saw it needed to be done. Making them squabbling, fearful, and ineffective without an outside force to organize them stands at odds against that nature. (Also, by this point, they'd defeated Thrawn, freed Lothal, stopped the TIE Defender program, and numerous other minor victories; there was hope aplenty as per the rest of canon).
Ivo-goji wrote:The sequel trilogy's treatment of Han and Luke is detestable because their characters in those movies aren't a satisfying extension of how they matured in the original trilogy. Comparing this to Rogue One's treatment of the Rebel Alliance is nonsensical, as Rogue One isn't about how the Rebellion lost its way, its about how they found their way after making mistakes and struggling against the odds. Saying they should have learned their lesson before they were even tested is like saying Luke should have proved he could resist the Dark Side without actually being tempted by it.
I'm not saying they should have learned their lesson before they were tested; I'm saying that positioning them as a group that needed to
learn that lesson in the first place stands counter to how they've been portrayed in the past and places them in a much dimmer light than all previous portrayals in which the individuals that came forward to form the rebellion at its inception already understood these things, knew what had to be done, understood how to put aside their differences to oppose the Empire- that's how the Rebel 'Alliance' came to be to begin with- and didn't have any tendencies toward assassination and the low-road to be overcome in the first place. Retroactively trying to supply them with those is still a diminishment of them compared to everything that they've been presented as, in the originals, the EU, and even new canon, up to and after that point.
But I do agree with you about Han and Luke.
Ivo-goji wrote:Not enough to sink a film entirely on their own... but a major enough strike that there has to be a whole lot of good to counteract it. TFA comes close enough to break even. TLJ actively compounds the problems for me. And Rogue One... just kind of has nothing. It doesn't engage, doesn't inspire; and thus, there's nothing to counteract that major strike against it.
Jyn's transformation from cynical contrarian to selfless freedom fighter wasn't inspiring? Cassian's struggle to atone for the evils he's done isn't inspiring? Both of them reaching these points because the bond they've forged pushed them to be better people isn't inspiring? Baze recovering his lost faith because of his bond with Chirrut isn't inspiring? Galen's long battle to sabotage the Death Star in the face of overwhelming odds isn't inspiring?
...No? I didn't really see any measurable change in Jyn. Cassian being a monster and then being sorry about it isn't inspiring, it's... basically decent, at best. Even then, I didn't see any especial atonement there. Baze, sure. Galen- no, I find the entire concept of his intentional sabotage idiotic writing, so I wasn't inspired by the implied offscreen years in which he was doing it.
Look, I understand you liked this movie. I could ask the same questions about plenty of movies I like ("You didn't find the Harry and the Sandman's plotline with forgiveness to be more powerful than your dislike of how they handled Venom, internet acquaintance?"); but whatever points may be factual, this is a matter of personal taste. For me, none of the elements or the plots in the film inspired any emotion. Whether it was the way they were written, or edited, or acted... again, I can see the elements of what would be a good story, or an involving plot, or a stirring moment, but the way that they were assembled, none of them managed to reach the point of being good, or involving, or stirring, for me. That's not being uncharitable; that's just an honest appraisal of how the movie felt for me. Different art touches different people differently. This one didn't, for me.
Ivo-goji wrote:And no, I definitely don't brush the other merits aside- I don't see many merits.
I've raised a number of points in the film's favor, that so far no one has refuted or explained away, just brushed aside half heartedly.
You've raised a number of points that were merits for you. If it were that simple to make a film good or accepted, then my eloquent defenses would have the internet recognizing that The Motion picture is the best Star Trek movie, Spider-man 3 is the best Spider-man movie, G14 is so much better than Shin Godzilla that it's not ever funny, and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is an amazing film. But just because they have points that make them meritorious to
me doesn't mean that other people will see them as such. As I said in the bit you quoted, '
I don't see many merits.' All that means is that they aren't there in
my estimation; not that they don't exist for you, or any particular other viewer.
Ivo-goji wrote:
Plus, the film seemed to lack an indefinable something that prevented any of the pieces of either the narrative or the score from ever gelling together into a coherent, involving whole.
Rogue One is about comrades. Jyn was abandoned by everyone she cared about; she'd given up believing in comrades. The Rebellion was rife with fear and division in what seemed to be a losing battle. When Jyn is pulled back into the Rebellion, she doesn't want any part of it, but once she joins the mission to Jedha she begins to rethink her feelings about the cause. Cassian and K-2, Chirrut and Baze, Galen and Bodhi, all people who believed in each other, all comrades fighting for the same cause, pushing each other farther than any of them could have gotten on their own- when Jyn realizes these people
are her comrades, she realizes that the cause isn't hopeless. Rogue One comes together to take on a desperate gamble that is the fractured Rebellion's only chance of standing up to the Death Star; their actions push the Rebel Alliance into uniting together to win this battle, their first great victory against the Empire. Rogue One is about finding hope in standing with your comrades when things seem hopeless on your own.
I do understand the concept. But as I said, the execution never gelled together into anything involving, inspiring, or meaningful to me. I get what it was supposed to be about, but the actual product onscreen fell flat, for me. I feel that I've given a personal offense in that, somehow, but I don't mean to. It's kinda like... a long island ice tea. Someone else might extol its virtues, the subtle blend of flavors, the heady feeling of downing it... to me, it just tasted like extra-bitter grapefruit juice. Whatever value it may have to someone else, to me, it was just kind of nothing. That doesn't mean it was nothing to you, or that the film is objectively without value- but for me, it was, and compounded that fall-flatness with an insulting slant on what is near and dear to the heart of Star Wars. That's why
I so heavily disfavor it. But that's just me.
