Rogue One

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see how anyone could think this movie was made more for the kiddies than previous Star Wars movies -- as I saw what happened to all of the main characters, without spoilers, I started to think that this movie was not made for smaller children...

[Guest]

Well David the one thing that separates the 1977 Star Wars from all the others is that it was not made with the intention of it being a mass ad campaign to sell toys. There is no way Lucas could of predicted that the toy sales would be more valuable than the ticket sales. It's very clear that the other Star Wars movies have been made with toy sales in mind, this is clearly evidenced by the fact that the toys show up in retail at the SAME time the movie gets released!! The Rogue One toys are already in stores, have been for a while.

 

With the 77 Star Wars it took a while for Lucas to realize what he had on his hands and exploit it.

 

R,

[Dan Finlayson]

It's unfortunate here in Los Angeles, we no longer have a 70mm IMAX screen for major releases like this. They also didn't strike 35mm prints like they did with 'The Force Awakens'.

 

I don't know if anyone addressed this later in the thread, but this is not accurate - I saw RO at Universal on a 70mm print. I know they previously installed laser projection at that theater but I guess they kept the old projector.

[Tyler Purcell]

I don't see how anyone could think this movie was made more for the kiddies than previous Star Wars movies -- as I saw what happened to all of the main characters, without spoilers, I started to think that this movie was not made for smaller children...

Well what I mean by "kiddies" are teenagers. The fact it had almost no character development and that it was mainly one big run-on action scene, steps well out of place from the franchise. Star Wars in of it's essence is about dialog and character development.

[Tyler Purcell]

I don't know if anyone addressed this later in the thread, but this is not accurate - I saw RO at Universal on a 70mm print. I know they previously installed laser projection at that theater but I guess they kept the old projector.

Interesting, looks like they still have the 15/70 projector. Though funny enough, they only ran the film print for 4 days. They no longer advertise it on AMC or the IMAX website. :(

 

I have a feeling my comment was accurate though. I don't think they "normally" run 15/70 at all. I think it was a one-off thing and thats why the screening is not on the list anymore. They did the same thing with Interstellar at the Chinese, bringing in a 15/70 projector for the first week. Wish I had known about it, I just didn't know there were any options.

[Bruce Greene]

Since this is a cinematography group and not a star wars fan club...

 

My only comment will be that I couldn't tell that this movie was filmed with the Alexa 65 vs standard Alexa.

 

Which to me shows one thing: The contrast range of the projection is more important than the number of pixels one records. Or, even the size of the sensor. At least at 24fps :)

 

Ok, my "review" 6/10. But, my young, adult daughter loved it. And there was applause at the multiplex at the end of the film...

[Max Field]

Ok, my "review" 6/10. But, my young, adult daughter loved it. And there was applause at the multiplex at the end of the film...

That's about what I would predict it'd be. Also I remember seeing SW7 at 9 in the morning (on a weekday) and the audience applauded at the opening roll. I've never been so embarrassed to simply be out in public.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Macks Fiiod

[Tyler Purcell]

My only comment will be that I couldn't tell that this movie was filmed with the Alexa 65 vs standard Alexa.

Field of view was the only real way to tell.

 

Which to me shows one thing: The contrast range of the projection is more important than the number of pixels one records. Or, even the size of the sensor. At least at 24fps :)

Yep it sure is and MOST digital cinema projectors don't have enough dynamic range in the blacks to really make any difference. From full white to full black is only 20 - 40 degrees of movement on the mirrors. So that doesn't give you very much range. I saw the film on a Sony 4k projector at Arclight Cinemas and it looked muddy. Some of my projectionist friends commented on this same effect.

[David Mullen ASC]

Looked great on the Dolby Cinema projector at the AMC 15 Century City.

[George Ebersole]

Tyler, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.

 

My little preamble here; I was bitter when the film started, largely because of a half hour of just horrible previews for films like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2, or the new Transformer's movie, and something else that my subconcious is trying to block to keep from having an anneurism.

 

And one more thing before I launch into Rogue One; and that is the Ray Harryhausen films are still much better films unto themselves and when compared to today's plethora of scifi fantasy sequels for teenage boys. They're better paced, more compelling stories, and good themes people need to connect with and ponder.

 

Rogue One; I saw it tonight at the San Francisco SONY Meteron. I thought it was decent. To be honest I had misgivings in the begining because it looked like the thing was written by a comic book author, and not by a professional screenplay artist. I had to fight off some sleep for the talkier parts, and I think I caught about five or minutes of snooze time before the fist X-Wing strike.

 

My overall reaction is that I think this was the Star Wars prequel that people wanted back in the early 2000s. It wasn't too heavy, but had some dramatic moments. I think of Lucas shooting style for the original film, and it strikes me that perhaps he had the right formula balance for that movie.

 

I don't have too many thoughts on the characters. It's Star Wars for a younger generation, and I think that's about all I can really say about it. I would have shot it differently, and maybe even had some story and plot tweaks here and there.

 

Having played the X-Wing and Rebel Assault games, I truly thought this was going to be about the famed "Rogue" squadron, but none such was the case.

 

I'm just puzzled as to why Disney made this film. I hope they're not trying to prepare today's teens and 20-somethings for something ominous.

 

I have to admit, I did crack a smile when the X-Wings arrived on scene and started shooting up the place.

[Dan Finlayson]

Interesting, looks like they still have the 15/70 projector. Though funny enough, they only ran the film print for 4 days. They no longer advertise it on AMC or the IMAX website. :(

 

I have a feeling my comment was accurate though. I don't think they "normally" run 15/70 at all. I think it was a one-off thing and thats why the screening is not on the list anymore. They did the same thing with Interstellar at the Chinese, bringing in a 15/70 projector for the first week. Wish I had known about it, I just didn't know there were any options.

 

 

A friend saw it today on 70mm, interesting that they no longer flag the theater as 70.

 

I suspect that theater owns the projector so they're just holding onto it for this sort of thing. I bet Dunkirk will screen there on film.

[George Ebersole]

 

Given the forking Disney and the old Lucasfilm guard did with this film, trying out a distinct cinematic aesthetic for the separate anthology movies as opposed to the established episodic movies, I think the differences are pretty stark yet purposefully executed. I think this dichotomy is important, and works better than I thought.

 

Yeah, that's the sense I got. It was purposefully shot differently to update the feel of the films to keep the property fresh for a younger audience. It was different.

 

This film felt like it was, again updated, to appeal more to the Call of Duty / Battlefield / Counter Strike younger gaming audience. Lots of combat footage with an almost gamer like perspective.

 

I sort of shrug my shoulders at it. I think if your film's story is compelling enough, then you don't need to borrow too much from other media. But then again games have surpassed films as primary entertainment venues, so you get this Star Wars' film that has a kind of unique blend of traditional film making, some newer film making techniques, and some gaming perspectives.

 

It did seem over the top here and there, but I think that was again to give some impressive visuals to a younger generation who came to be wowed by SFX.

 

Just me.

[Tyler Purcell]

A friend saw it today on 70mm, interesting that they no longer flag the theater as 70.

It's a very interesting conundrum.

 

The IMAX website lists the Rogue One screenings as "Laser Digital 3D"

The Fandango website lists Rogue One IMAX screening as "IMAX 3D"

The AMC website lists the Rogue ONE IMAX screening as "IMAX 3D"

 

However... the specific website for the theater doesn't even LIST IMAX 3D at all! It simply says 'IMAX' which I assume is 15/70.

 

So this was a HUGE marketing fail by IMAX and it just shows you how they're willing to lie to customers in order to push film away. This isn't the first time I've seen this happen. They did the same thing with 'Interstellar' saying it was "laser IMAX" where it was clearly 15/70.

[Landon D. Parks]

Well, I think a lot of these technical terms are lost among the public anyway, which is who IMAX is aiming for. Most people know of two IMAX formats, 'IMAX 2D' and 'IMAX 3D'. Adding 'laser projection' or '70/30 film' just confuses the genera public, and such distinctions are generally only appreciated by die-hard format fans and industry pro's, neither of whom is a major market for IMAX, or any studio for that matter.

Just like these new 'Dolby Cinema' format that is coming out. Every person I have talked too has no idea what it is or if/why its better than IMAX. People generally just want to see a movie, and keeping it simple and streamlined is the easiest way.

 

I don't think IMAX is trying to lie to the public about it at all. If most of the public even knows the difference between film vs digital (and most don't, or don't care), IMAX and other studios (and the public who actually cares) know that film projection is already dead for all intents and purposes.

Just my $0.02.

[Tyler Purcell]

Umm, the IMAX website says "laser digital 3D". So when you go to a movie and expect it to be 3D, but it's not... that's called false advertising.

[Dan Finlayson]

So this was a HUGE marketing fail by IMAX and it just shows you how they're willing to lie to customers in order to push film away. This isn't the first time I've seen this happen. They did the same thing with 'Interstellar' saying it was "laser IMAX" where it was clearly 15/70.

 

 

I can't say too much about the specifics, but I believe in this case the blame falls on Disney primarily. Striking the prints was a last minute decision.

[George Ebersole]

Umm, the IMAX website says "laser digital 3D". So when you go to a movie and expect it to be 3D, but it's not... that's called false advertising.

 

It could be worse. At least they didn't shoot it on a Fisher Price PXL 2000. Then where would you go see it?

 

*tongue inserted into cheek*

[Max Field]

that's called false advertising.

Got the lawyers to challenge them on that, wiseguy?

[Guest]

Well as I keep saying every time I hear of a movie claiming to be IMAX. Unless it's shown in a theatre like this, on a screen like this, it's not IMAX, period. Any other venue is just false advertising:

 

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

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

Well as I keep saying every time I hear of a movie claiming to be IMAX. Unless it's shown in a theatre like this, on a screen like this, it's not IMAX, period. Any other venue is just false advertising:

 

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

 

R,

 

As long as it isn't a domed OMNIMAX screen, those are awful for movies...

 

I agree though, real IMAX has to be in an IMAX theater -- steep rake for the seats, huge screen that towers over you, and an insane amount of resolution. There can be a digital version of that someday, maybe 8K laser projection, but the current 4K 1.9 : 1 digital IMAX version is hardly different than any other theater system.

[Landon D. Parks]

I won't do the multiplex IMAX any longer. I DID do it for Fantastic Beasts - but only because I got a free ticket. Sitting 2/3 of the way back, the out-dated 2k projection was apparent on the larger screen - showing the dreaded screen door effect enough to be distracting.

 

IMAX digital has to be the worst idea as its implemented. Even the other auditoriums in the theaters have better projectors than the IMAX screen.

If you want a nice experience, check out the 'Dolby Cinema' experience. Same sized screen as the fake IMAX, but uses 2 x 4K laser projectors and Atmos surround sound combined with reclining seats. Now that is the way to see movies.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Tyler Purcell]

I can't say too much about the specifics, but I believe in this case the blame falls on Disney primarily. Striking the prints was a last minute decision.

Maybe... I was actually at fotokem when the IMAX truck picked up the print a few weeks before it opened. I didn't even think to ask him where it was going, figured it was being shipped out of state.

[George Ebersole]

I guess my only other complaint about Rogue One is that it was in 3D. It really didn't seem to add anything to the experience. After a while I forgot about it. The movie might as well have been traditional flat 2D.

 

As for IMAX, well, the film might as well have been presented via a 35mm print. I saw an IMAX "laser projection" showing last night, and given the 3D effect, to me, it seems like the money could have been spent elsewhere.

 

Not a bad movie, and okay in some respects, but I felt like someone was trying to "wow" me as opposed to telling a dazzling tale in a galaxy far far away.

[Tyler Purcell]

The film was not made in 3D, it like MOST 3D movies was converted in post. They only do it because they get $20 per ticket for 3D vs $14 - $16 for 2D and that extra money is worth it.

[George Ebersole]

The film was not made in 3D, it like MOST 3D movies was converted in post. They only do it because they get $20 per ticket for 3D vs $14 - $16 for 2D and that extra money is worth it.

 

 

Well I guess I'm just stupid then. When I was looking at the menu I thought I deliberately chose a standard screening, but when the previews started rolling some of the images got blurry. I got really angry because I had to grab a pair of glasses.