I think it's about fueling rage. He literally became Darth Vader on Mustafar by killing his wife and two unborn children (from his POV, anyway) along with losing his battle with the Jedi.

http://a.dilcdn.com/bl/wp-content/up...5-1024x614.jpg

http://www.starwars.com/news/we-set-...inkId=32763287

This is pretty cool, from Doug Chiang of Lucasfilm:

StarWars.com: To start, this was the thing that really made me jump out of my seat…which then made my wife scratch her head a little bit. Vader’s castle.

Doug Chiang: [Laughs] Vader’s castle was really fun. When I knew that we were going to possibly go back to Vader’s castle, I loved that idea of, “Okay, lets establish Vader’s home.” The initial idea was, “Why would Vader live here?” In our minds, we started to come up with a little bit of a backstory. That perhaps this place had special meaning for him, and that this is where he comes to meditate and to heal himself. We started with the idea that maybe it should be built around his bacta tank chamber, and he comes back here to rejuvenate himself and also to meditate. So from there, the structure itself grew out from the bacta tank, and there were certain ideas that we tried. We were trying to go for a very iconic shape, and we always love tall towers. Ralph McQuarrie actually drew quite a few small thumbnail sketches [of Vader’s castle] that were very intriguing. They were kind of angular versions of a tower, and I saw the potential of where he was going, and I just exaggerated that quite a bit.

One of the things we landed on early was this idea of a tuning fork — a twin tower kind of look. And it was really interesting, because then that started to give Gareth a lot of ideas like, “Well, maybe the structure is built this way because it is like a tuning fork. It’s tuning the dark side in terms of the energy.” And then we actually carried that even further to Jedha. The Jedha temple, the tower there, mirrors this but on the good side. So when you see the film, you can start to see, “Okay, Jedha had its own tower, which was configured like a tuning tower. Vader’s tower, Vader’s castle, had the same thing but it was made in black, whereas Jedha was white.” You kind of start to see the good and the bad. You may not really notice it on a first take, but hopefully it’s that foundation of design subtleties that then the audiences, on second viewing, will appreciate. And I always like to build those elements in there because it makes the design more coherent, it makes the film more coherent, and overall it makes the design language very authentic and real.

StarWars.com: There’s also the note in here — I think you said it — that there is a Sith cave underneath. Where did that come from? It’s funny, because you’re watching the movie and you have no idea that there could be a Sith cave under there, but then you read it in the book, and you’re like, “That’s awesome and that makes sense.”

Doug Chiang: Exactly. It went back to the original idea of, “Well, why would Vader be here?” and there was a series of paintings and sketches that Ralph McQuarrie did, where Luke actually visits Vader in this underground lava cave. I always thought that was such a compelling image, because you have this lava lake inside this cave and there was Vader’s throne. So we took that idea and thought, “Okay, well, maybe on the lower levels of Vader’s castle, there’s a more ancient part. That he actually built this castle on a foundation of an ancient structure.” If you look at the finished design, it has this very strong element of a structure that was there for a purpose, and that purpose was to draw energy from the lava lake. If you look at the design of the base, it feels very much like a dam, and how the lava flows through it, possibly getting energy. And so we thought, “Okay, well, that’s the foundation. Maybe even deeper, or underneath that, is an even more ancient part, which is a natural cave where Vader goes to meditate.” Visually, we’re trying to create a sort of history for the tower. The bottom is the most ancient, the lava lake dam part was perhaps what Vader built his foundation on, and then the tower was Vader’s addition.

The reason "Star Wars" looked the way it did in 1977 was because it WAS 1977. And it was rated PG. Back then, they didn't exactly get visceral or realistic... just like how, on TV, they didn't do it either. Now, you have TV shows like "Criminal Minds" and "Dexter" and whatnot, where torture and dismemberment are de rigeur. You have superheroes who look and act nothing like Adam West and Christopher Reeve.

But let's take a better look at your "kids movie":

- the Empire torches Luke's home, leaving the burned corpses of his aunt and uncle still smoking outside;

- the Empire uses a planetkilling space station to literally obliterate millions of people at once;

- Darth Vader kills Obi-Wan (albeit in a bloodless vanishing act).

Don't forget, there was no PG-13 rating until 1984.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...-rating-debuts

This came about due to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which Lucas, of course, wrote.

Always pushing the envelope.

I've been enjoying the photography of ANH as of late. I usually put on a movie to fall asleep to, and I've been watching Epi 4 quite a bit lately. Certain scenes, such as Threepio wandering the desert with thick, ominous storm clouds in the background give that movie a stark realism that the prequels just can't touch.
Think about it; Tatooine is the most arid planet in the trilogy, has two suns, yet because of the limitations of the 70's, we've got a huge storm brewing in the distance that simply could not occur on a planet like that.
It's the most "technologically poor" movie of the entire franchise, yet it's the most visually rich.

Of course, but the point of new fans generated by the move still stands.

The theme parks are also doing very well after the move.

And Bambi's mother gets shot by a hunter.

I'm not saying the previous movies are G rated, but if you can't see an OBVIOUS shift in tone here, I don't know what movie you were watching. This was a movie about grim sacrifice. About characters who have no heroic arc to speak of but rather are born into suffering, fight and then die. We're following the final death rattles of a handful of miserable existences who's final reward is to be shot, detonated, immolated or otherwise disposed of.

This movie should've had a crawl and it should've been straight from Thomas Hobbes:

{Fanfare!!}

During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man.

To this war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues.

No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

{fadeout to spaceship}

This shit was dark as hell, man. It was absolutely something much much different than the original trilogy and not a positive development for the 'franchise proper'.

Interesting, did not realize!

Episode VII was dark as hell, too.

The "joy" that everyone felt at the end of ROTJ, with Han, Leia, Chewie and the Rebels celebrating the death of the Emperor and the destruction of the Death Star, Luke seeing his father as a Force Ghost next to Obi Wan and Yoda, was a very fleeting moment.

Flash forward 30 years: Han & Leia are separated and living apart. Luke is no where to be found, as he ran away after Han & Leia's child murdered every one of his padawans in his his new Jedi Order. The First Order, the heir to the Empire, creates a weapon that murders billions upon billions of people on five planets. Han Solo is murdered by his own son.

That's some dark ass shit.

But you also had emerging friendships and redemption arcs. You had happy characters that seemingly have bright futures ahead of them. You had cute bubbly little robots that make outstanding toys and weren't shot a dozen times before exploding and dying.

It wasn't as oppressively dour.

Again, this movie may as well have been Blackhawk Down with the tone it adopted.

Everything you f-ng say is perfectly on-point. Whether you are talking football or star wars, or whatever. It's G-damn annoying.

:clap:

The biggest problem with Episode VII was that it was a carbon copy of Episode IV. There was no originality, nothing new, just a direct copy with better actors, direction, cinematography and VFX.

But here's the truth: There will never, ever be another film like the original Star Wars film. No one had seen anything like it before on the big screen with space battles and planet destroying space stations and light sabers. The farm boy, princess, smuggler, walking carpet and Merlin the Magician all working together towards a common goal and once it was completed, everyone receives a medal. Every kid loved it, adults loved it was a generational movie unlike anything the world had seen at that point. But it all changed with Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back.

George Lucas made The Phantom Menace for kids. It featured an 8 year old actor, a dopey frog, a couple of droids and old school Jedi Knights. It featured swashbuckling action, the best lightsaber duel ever, a scary bad guy in Darth Maul and Princess Leia's mom kicking all the ass that we'd see Leia do 30 years later. Kids loved it!

Adults hated it. The internet hated it. People complained it "ruined their childhood". Lucas tried to course-correct with the next two films but they weren't much more appealing. Star Wars was essentially dead in the water. The Clone Wars animated series, developed by George Lucas, was far closer to what people of certain age expected in a Star Wars property but it hasn't reached everyone. Rebels is treading dangerously close to Rogue One, in terms of sacrifice, destruction, etc. (and they're going to have a difficult time resolving the characters because none of them appear in the OT).

But the bottom line is that The Empire Strikes Back changed everything. Every director and writer hired by Lucasfilm is a huge fan, whether it's Abrams or Johnson or Trevorrow or Phil Lord & Chris Miller. They were HUGE fans of the OT but the film that stands out among all of them is Empire. Empire is dark and menacing, Vader is far more evil than in ANH and he nearly destroys his own son. That's some heavy shit.

Now, we're seeing that Empire influence in Rogue One and Episode VII. Lots of death, lots of destruction, new and evil characters to match Vader and the Emperor. And from all reports, including Adam Driver and Larry Kasdan, Episode VIII is even darker in tone than VII and darker than Empire. And hell, that was before the untimely death of Carrie Fisher.

I think the stand alone Han Solo movie has a chance to be lighter in tone and closer to the original film, because the character himself is lighter in tone. And Phil Lord & Chris Miller are absurdly funny (Son of Zorn is the weirdest, most absurd TV show I've ever seen and I love it).

But as for the Episodes and other stand alone films, I'd expect the tone to be similar to Episode VII and Rogue One because that's what adults want to see.

The children can just tag along.

And as I noted - I hope you're wrong.

Even Carrie Fisher referred to the Star Wars universe as every little boys dream. There's simply too much awe and wonder in the Star Wars universe for me to be okay with the kids 'tagging along'.

There's a place somewhere between Menace and Rogue One. It's not even that narrow of a landing strip.

That place should be the target. If you want a war epic, go see Dunkirk.

I'm expecting Indiana Jones Innnnnn Spaaaaaaaaacccce!

Considering how dark Rebels has gotten, and it being an animated series on a Disney kids channel, I don't know how hopeful I'd be.

I like the idea of them being able to create multiple mood/tone settings through the main series and the side stories. It has helped keep the MCU from getting to stagnant, and should be possible here.

I fully support the concept and principle of the stand alone movies being the place where writers, directors, and actors are allowed to venture outside of and beyond the usual paradigm of SW storytelling and presentation.

I get it, man, but it doesn't look like it's going that way. Just look at the upcoming director's resumes:

Rian Johnson: Looper, Brick (R)
Colin Trevorrow: Jurassic World (PG-13)

If KK had hired Speilberg or Zemeckis, I'd probably agree that the films would trend back towards ANH but with Johnson and Trevorrow, I'm expecting them to get much, much darker.

Now, that doesn't mean either film will be without a sense of humor here or there but that for the most part, they're going to be very adult in presentation and theme.

Alot of great discussion and I went to see RO last week, didn't read anything about it, no spoilers etc and wow I thought it was the best SW movie since Empire and moved the series back to the way IMVHO it was meant to be. To me this was the true prequel and if there was a way for Disney to delete those 3 prequels and act like they never existed it would be great.

For DJ and others that maybe didn't like the adult tone, I know we are all adults now but I would encourage to go back and watch IV and I think you would see that it was more of an adult film than maybe you realize. It had plenty of adult themes even though it was made in 1977 where they didn't make alot of movies with gritty realism. If IV was made today I think it would more align with Rogue one than Guardians of the Galaxy.

As kid growing up in that era and that had all the toys (still do if anyone wants to buy them) I always thought Empire was the best even as a kid. I hope SW continues with more of what NH\Empire\RO did and much less of the other ones. The Force Awakens was complete crap.

I've decided that my favorite trilogy is Rogue One, A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back.

:D

Finally saw it. I thought it was awesome. Loved the visual and sound effects. I didn't particularly care for the characters but when they all started being killed off in the end I felt sad- I guess I sympathize with the cause.

That Vader scene was so ****ing epic. I nearly jizzed. I'd pay full price of admission to see that alone.

I'll spoiler this just in case somebody hasn't seen it and wants to see it in the theater....

Finally got to see it yesterday and it was outstanding. Great film.

Good conversation in here guys. I guess I hadn't thought about just how dark each film was. As far as it being dark, I think there may be some repreaves throughout. I'd anticipate that, from a strategy standpoint they are going to make different kinds of films. Much like Daredevil and GotG are in the same universe so will be some lighter stuff.

I don't know how it will play, but I'd guess that's where they are going.

hell yeah.

Damn, that is awesome.

Here's hoping they make many more great flicks that weave in with the universe so flawlessly!

I'm happy that the film is performing well. It gets better with each viewing and you start to see how Disney will be able to open up the universe and go in new directions that will play into their proven Avengers formula. Building solid "side-stories" that intersect with the canon we already know and love is just brilliant.

Lucas got taken to the cleaners by Disney IMO. Then again, he probably wouldn't have done anything interesting with the IP had he kept it so win-win I guess...

With the exception of 'Rebels', I don't recall hearing about anything new being on the table while he still held the rights to the franchise.

Honestly? It's really difficult to argue with this. I think you're 100% right.

Took our 7 year old yesterday, I had little interest seeing it myself. That was one outstanding movie. The 2nd half was as good as movies can possibly get.

I believe I heard this movie eclipsed the billion dollar mark worldwide. Fantastic, and well deserved.

Glad you enjoyed it, and yeah, that third act was amazing. I hope we get more Star Wars films like that in the future.

He created and produced The Clone Wars series with Dave Filoni, which IMO, is just behind the first two movies in terms of storytelling and creativity.

He also developed a live action series, in which there are more than 50 scripts written, which are now property of Disney/Lucasfilm.

And very, very important to Disney/Lucasfilm.

The movie over-performed projections. Disney knew it wouldn't get close to TFA's $2.1 billion but they were hoping for a modest success.

The fact that it topped a billion, especially considering the fate of all of the characters, means that not only is Lucasfilm on the right track, they'll also be given freer reign and the budget to continue beyond the planned films (Han Solo, Epi 8 & 9).

It'll also allow them to continue to hire the most talented screenwriters, directors and cinematographers in the world of filmmaking.

Obviously late to this thread (couldn't be helped :D) but I just wanted to say how much I absolutely loved Rogue One. I sat there grinning from ear to ear for most of the movie. It was as good as the original and Empire. No plot rehashing, no ridiculous plot holes, no Jar Jar, no ewoks, no whiny emo villians, no how much shit can we shove in every frame CGI overload. It was dark, gritty, violent and wonderful. Darth Vader was once again Darth Vader. And it didn't have a cheesy everybody lives happily ever after ending - it had a Glory ending.

I can't remember what the last movie was that I saw twice in the theater prior to this. But I saw this one a second time. And it didn't lose a damn thing during the second viewing.

Bravo. :clap:

All excellent news.

And I hope they take note that audiences were not put off by the dark and gritty tones and continue to incorporate that feel into future films. It CAN work while making insane profits.

Once they got old man Lucas out of the picture, the movies got good again. Those 3 bombs he belched out were like watching an old tired Jordan on aching knees sitting on the perimeter chucking jumpers. After Phantom Menace the reigns should've been taken from the geezer who couldn't write a decent story and relied on "jump shots" like endless special effects and awful acting.


Rogue had such a great setting high above that space shield looking down on the planet. It was so well done. Tarkin was a dead Ringer and Darth's curtain call at the end was spectacular

Tarkin's face was a motion capture VFX creation.

Interesting. I was like "who the hell walked into casting looking exactly like that?"


Also even the droid was good this time.

They hired an actor with a similar build and height, then placed dozens of capture points on his head and face.

http://www.flickeringmyth.com/wp-con...-rogue-one.png


He was completely VFX as well. Alan Tudyk had to wear stilts for the entire shoot and was also mo-cap.

http://i.imgur.com/d7cWvAd.jpg?1

I'm still in awe of the job they did recreating Cushing. The young Carrie Fisher face was a little off, but they absolutely nailed him.

Ugh. That was the worst part of the movie for me. Was horribly cartoonish. Was like watching a Final Fantasy movie. I don't know how anyone could see that and not be thrown off?

Seriously, the guy's dead. I'd rather they did that than use a different actor.

If you want to see how a shitty CGI recreated young face looks, I invite you to watch the second Tron movie.

lol

Tron Legends was truly abysmal. Personally, I would have preferred no Tarkin.

Agreed. I couldn't believe when Tarkin was first shown.

I've seen the movie three times, including IMAX, and it was awesome each time.

I went with a friend who hadn't seen the OT in years.

He was absolutely stunned to learn about the CGI.

As for Carrie, I think that was more noticeable because they never showed Cushing in full light.

Cool, I hadn't seen the pictures of the "new" Tarkin and Tudyk in their filming get ups. Pretty amazing.

When Tarkin made his first appearance I thought they found a dead ringer for him. It wasn't until his third scene that it jumped out at me he was CGI. They did a great job with that.

I know people like to bash on the Tron sequel, but at the time, it was a pretty decent attempt at passing off CGI as real. If they had done a better job on his facial movements it would have been less obvious.

Wow. Maybe it's me, but I thought it was totally noticeable. Here's a side by side...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/819...x2-940x627.jpg

...and here is an image from Final Fantasy: Spirits Within...

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/...20100816211417

That's 2001 CGI, looking just as good as the Tarkin CGI in 2016 (actually better IMO). The same smoothness to the features. Take away the non-CGI background, and I don't see anything better about Tarkin. The only thing that makes it better than a cartoon is that there is so much static background and zero interaction with anything else. No flowing hair, etc. They did a very minimalist job to help hide the fact that it's CGI, but it is still very noticeable CGI. At least it was to me.

Maybe if I hadn't heard all the raving reviews about the CGI going in I wouldn't have had such high expectations and looking for it. I don't know, was just a major (and really the only for me) disappointment.

EDIT: I'm not saying it was bad in comparison to other CGI stuff, just that it was noticeable, and I would prefer not to have CGI people in a live action film. Takes me "out of the moment" and ruins the mood.

I will say this, once you see it, you can't unsee it.

The most difficult aspect of recreating Tarkin was the lighting. It's clear that his skin tone is different when shown side by side. Matching the lighting on a movie, created on film, 40 years earlier, was nearly impossible but IMO, ILM did an amazing job.

I had zero issues with Tarkin and it never jumped out at me as VFX. Carrie Fisher's recreation, OTOH, looked weird. Something about the movement (or non movement) of her upper threw me off, all three times I saw the movie.

But hey, the overall movie was so amazing to me that I can look past something as small as the Princeles Leia VFX.

The main thing I notice is the shape of the head is different. But you'd never notice that unless the images were side by side.

Come on dudes, no way does "Tarkin" have a burned image so strong in your brain you can really recall details about his face shape. If you saw him and didn't think "wow that's him!" then I'm calling bullshit

Yeah, the Carrie Fisher job was absolutely horrible. You could tell they just blurred the edges to try and hide it.

This was definitely the best SW film since Empire. Hands down. I just sometimes wonder if I saw the same movie everyone else did when I hear how perfect this CGI was. Like I said though, if I had gone in blind without knowing about it or having any expectations it might not have jumped out at me.

When he spoke, the mouth movements immediately reminded me of Serkis' Caesar from the Apes series.

Anyways, it won't prevent me from watching it again when it hits streaming. Looking forward to it actually. Will probably be much less noticeable to me on a smaller screen.

That's because you're an idiot. It's not about how close they got to making it look like Cushing, it's about how far away they got from it looking like CGI.

I avoided most news on this heading into it so I had no idea Tarkin was in it.

And immediately recognized it as CGI. I didn't know if they'd aged up the actor that played him in the originals or something (was my first thought when he came out, but mostly I was just confused), but within just a few seconds I could see that cartoonish effect.

I think unlurking is right; he looked like a video game character (I was actually thinking Metal Gear, myself). I was mostly just curious why they couldn't have had Krennick doing almost everything and then when he got wiped out at the end, you could have Tarkin sorta step in and take over for a brief 'cameo'.

I guess the issue is continuity and it might not have worked with the folks that know this universe much more than I do. Perhaps there's a lot of already existing story that establishes that Tarkin was obviously Krennick's boss, etc...

It didn't make the movie worse, but it made it different and not in a way that was demonstrably better. As such, I think I'd have avoided it outright.

If you're bragging about your CGI detection abilities, congrats. You're now the ultimate dork.

Not bragging. Just saying you might want to get your eyes checked. I'm not the only one who noticed it.

Agreed. It was still a great movie, and even though the CGI was obvious, Tarkin is a great character. It just felt odd.

Maybe the older you are the less this shit bothers you. If I'd grown up watching Jackson's Lord of the Rings instead of the original Star Trek perhaps I'd be pickier. But I was a wide-eyed 11-year-old the first time I saw Star Wars, and I remember the shit that passed for special effects in movies prior to that. This just doesn't bother me. They did their best and put a lot of care and attention into it, but it's not like they can go back in time and snatch up Cushing to provide a few extra lines of dialogue. The guy sounded the part, and the CGI made him look the part. It wasn't perfect. So what?

Possible age related. Never saw the originals in the theater. For me it was jarring. Everything else about the movie was amazing, but then all of a sudden something seemed out of place.

This argument reminds me of some of my older relatives who swore they couldn't see the difference between SD and HD video almost 20 years ago. I'll step off you off your lawns and let you all get back to reminiscing. ;)

I didn't even know he was dead until after I saw it and read the thread.

Dude it's been 40 years.....ha ha ha

I didn't know there were any CGI characters going into the movie but immediately could tell with Tarkin(then again, you know he'd probably be dead by now so it's hard not to look at him closer. It was CGIish and I was hoping they'd have been able to make it look better with current technology. It did slightly pull me out of the movie just because I was paying close attention to him.

IMO - They pushed Tarkin's character too far. I don't believe he had that many lines in any of the other movies.

The scenes where he was talking into his reflection would have sufficed. It would have amazed the fan boys and not be noticeable to the casual viewer. They kinda blew it there.

People, Tarkin wasn't a "CGI character".

He was portrayed by a human and his dialogue was performed by a human.

They chose a man that not only has the same build as Peter Cushing but that could also imitate his inflections and voice.

VFX were only applied to his face and had he been an original character and not a recreation of a man that died in 1994, there'd be little discussion about his inclusion.

And?

I don't thing the verbiage is what's at issue here. The question is how much, if any, Tarkin should've been included and whether his character added enough to the story to be worth a somewhat jarring bit of cognitive dissonance.

I think my answer is that it was too much fan service and not enough substance to justify the intrusion. It struck me as a VFX team tasked with working around some lazy writing.

It's not "verbiage". Tarkin wasn't created in a computer. He was a living, breathing human being. It was the actor's facial expressions - those weren't created in a computer or by VFX artists.

And I thought his inclusion was absolutely necessary and didn't mind the VFX. I fully disagree about "lazy writing". Leaving Tarkin out of Rogue One would have been a mistake, especially considering his importance in ANH and to The Emperor and Vader.

Now, I can understand why you didn't care for the portrayal but to leave him out entirely wouldn't have made sense in the grand scheme of the Star Wars Universe.

Call it whatever you want, but everybody RAVED about Star Wars getting back to practical effects for characters. There is a reason for that, as even prosthetics and makeup look more realistic than CGI overlays. Just because an actor uses motion capture to record motions and sounds does not mean that it looks real once those motions are translated into CGI graphics.

Yes, the performance was not CGI, but the overlay was. Golum and Caesar were both great performances by a living, breathing human being, but in no way did they seem "real". But in the context of those movies and the fact that the final screen product is not supposed to be human, it works.

For me, it wasn't a huge bother, but it did take me out of the moment and really affected my appreciation of the scenes he was in as it became something my mind focused on. In that regard, I'd rather he was used much more sparingly. At the same time, I love the Tarkin character and his backstory in the novel. I don't have an answer about what would have been a better solution, and I'll probably not be bothered by it on my next viewing. On first viewing in the theater though, I found it to be very distracting.

For reference, I'm going to compare the post effects shot of Tarkin to a picture taken from the OT that has a better resolution and not taken from a downward angle.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...off_Tarkin.png

This brings tears to my eyes every time. Glorious. And now in full HD!

My god, the rebel screaming "HELP UUUUUS" is just perfect. What an utterly perfect scene.

<iframe width="800" height="450" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WioRxS-uuTs?ecver=1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'd like to see some HD on the castle scenes of the bacta tank.

So good. And again, they made it so seamless with the beginning to ANH -

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eZqFkcLrbfs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dbn-Ox1XawI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I came.

Imagine being one of the rebels in that hallway LOL

**** all that.

https://vimeo.com/209263699

“Rogue One" melded to “A New Hope”

They would have been better off just saying "Get these to the Princess" and leaving it at that. The CGI Leia was...ugh...bad...

They certainly did a better job with Cushing. Fisher's face looks too long and narrow. I mean, you can tell it's her, but it's just.... off. Perhaps that's a result of the facial structure of the actual actress, but it seems they could have fixed that with a simple adjustment that I could do using the MS Paint program.

It's a minor beef, though. Overall, Rogue One is completely full of win.

I loved CGI Leia. It was nice to see them go Anti-Abrams and take bold risks at every turn. Some landed better than others, it's the nature of the beast.

It's a nitpicky thing. The movie was so awesome - I can't remember the last time I so thoroughly enjoyed something I saw at the theater. Can't wait for the blu ray to come out. Less than two weeks now.

Fantastic point, and I really enjoyed The Force Awakens when I first watched it. Rogue One is much better and will hold up better.