Rogue One

The only thing worse than the Stars Wars prequels is the industry of critics that resulted from it. Countless armchair "film critics" (to be generous) seemingly spawned from a viral critique of those films by Red Letter Media that surfaced years ago. (That review was really solid by the way. You should check it out.) Now the internet is awash with "critics" who not only hate the prequels, but essentially every new Star Wars film, and seek to kill any enjoyment whatsoever that anyone else might derive from them.

I was recently watching a review of Rogue One. I enjoyed Rogue one; I thought it was one of the best SW films made. It's not perfect, but what film is? The reviewer of course doesn't like it for numerous reasons; e.g., an ancillary character isn't "developed" enough. That tends to happen with a character that is not the main character. The reviewer would himself go on to acknowledge the fact it was a "supporting character," but was critical of its lack of development anyway.

Obviously, if you're a "professional" critic, then you have a vested interest in finding things about which to complain. And being a Youtube poster in particular seems to take this to an entirely other level, with reviewers resorting to being critical of ever more frivolous things, in order to squeeze as much life out of the material, and create a much content as possible. As the number of videos increases the legitimacy and quality of the criticism tends to decrease. Basically, as the critics run out of legitimate things to criticize (if any), they resort to criticizing films for progressively more petty and subjective (if not illusory) reasons, as a pretext for making new videos from which they derive compensation. Complaining about a supporting character's lack of depth is a prime example of this. Not only is it not an issue, it's not something that merits mentioning at all, because that's what supporting characters do; they lack depth. They're only there as a tool to advance the story line of the main character. We're not supposed to know everything about them, or necessarily much of anything at all about them, otherwise they'd be the main character.

He went on to complain that Jyn Erso's character lacked development also. But Rogue One isn't A New Hope. It's not the story of Jyn Erso; it was never meant to be. It's the story of how the Death's Star's plans were stolen from the Empire. The entire film is nothing more than a cinematic segue, that ties up some loose ends along the way. As such every character is a "supporting" character in a sense. I personally think Jyn Erso's character was developed more than enough to facilitate that objective. She was never meant to be the protagonist of a trilogy like Luke Skywalker in A New Hope. She dies at the end. So what would be the point of OVER-developing her?

This crap is so out of control at this point it's astounding. There's an endless sea of Star Wars critics, constantly ripping each other off and dispensing the same hackneyed and vapid insights, who bash literally everything associated with that name created after the original trilogy. And this abject awfulness in the new films, is almost invariably established by juxtaposing newer films against the original films, which are implicitly held up as the standard in film making excellence.

I loved the original Star Wars. What little boy doesn't? But they were the hardly the cinematic masterpieces these clowns portray them to be. They were super cheesy and grossly inadequate by modern standards in virtually every way. The sheer thickness of someone's nostalgia glasses to contend otherwise is pretty remarkable. Like many films, perhaps most, they were good for the time in which they were produced. But likewise they are like many if not most films of the past highly primitive in comparison to well made modern films.

The point is the original Star Wars were not "great" movies. They were decent movies, good even, for their time. And it's true that they aged well, or better than most, because adherence to a sound storytelling formula will do that. But they weren't the model to which every Star Wars film should be held, and to do that would only hold the franchise back, by killing innovation and creativity. If everything is expected to be "like" the originals, than all you're ever getting is a remake of the originals, which Force Awakens largely was. The amount of rehashing in that film was my least favorite thing about it. The people who made Force Awakens were trying so hard to appease the original trilogy fanboys, that it conspicuously hamstrung the franchise's progression. They were afraid to take the franchise in a new direction, or even innovate at all, because to do so would almost certainly result in immediate (and interminable) derogation by fans of the original trilogy.

Perhaps what amazes me most, is how none of them seem able to grasp that Rogue One was made primarily for the purpose of providing credibility, to one of the most farcical plot holes inherent to the original trilogy. How something the size of a planet was blown up by one little rocket shot into a seemingly innocuous tube. Could you imagine if a new Star Wars movie was made with something that absurdly tenuous and bereft of exposition being the lynch pin in how the Rebels defeated the Empire? It would be the equivalent of Captain Miller in Saving Private Ryan tossing a hand grenade into some random hatch on a German bunker in Berlin, which resulted in all of Berlin exploding, and the defeat the entire Nazi war machine. It would be absolutely ripped to shreds as the dumbest thing ever seen in film, by all of the same people maintaining that the original trilogy was the bestest, most perfectest works of sci-fi cinema ever devised by man.

No modern audience would accept something that absurd. But original trilogy fanboys not only accept it regarding the original trilogy, they hold it to be the standard to which all new SW films should strive, and against which they should be contrasted. It's thanks to Rogue One the destruction of the Death Star is no longer a joke. But they hate it. Every conceivable thing about it is criticized, while the original trilogy films are given a free pass in virtually every respect, for arguably equal or even greater infractions. They're too blinded by their nostalgia glasses to realize they're walking contradictions. They say Jyn Erso was a terrible, "uninteresting" character, and that pretty much all the other characters were too. Yet they also complain that they all died at the end. Why would you want a bunch of terrible characters to survive and possibly be conveyed into another, and perhaps even multiple subsequent films, if they all sucked? That doesn't make any sense. Typically when I don't like a character, I'm glad to see them go, if not hoping they're killed off.

They criticize new films for not being enough like the original films, when they deviate from that model, but likewise criticize new films for being too much like the old films and not taking risks, if they don't deviate from that model. Either way you're screwed. Seeing this gave Lucas's lamentations regarding the prequels, that "people just complain" no matter what you do, a familiar credence to me. Most of these critics aren't artists and have never created anything. They have no idea what it's like to create something, and then have other people claim it's theirs just because they like it, and use that as grounds to start dictating to you how to create and what should be done with your creations. It's an audacity they all display, but few if any would tolerate themselves. They bashed the hell out of Lucas for making changes to the original films after the fact, but as a former musician I can tell you I was never satisfied with my work. I never felt like I had the resources available to me at the time to reify what I envisioned in my head. So it's no surprise to me, regardless of you feel about it, that Lucas sought to make improvements to his old films once he had access to new technology. He almost certainly had to make countless compromises, due to the constraints of the day, that made the original films fall short of his vision for them. So I even though I din't like some of the alterations (which were objectively bad), I never begrudged him for it.

In my opinion K-2SO was the best character in the film. I'd love to see a spin off about him. But that'll likely never happen. The haters actually criticized K-2SO for trying to be funny. He was funny. But not to them. He's not C-3PO so he's garbage.

I thought Rogue One was a nice deviation from the Skywalker-centric model, that's getting pretty stale at this point, and can only continue to do so. The Star Wars universe has absolute tons of other characters that are just as interesting and even more so. Darth Revan's story line in KotOR is better than any of the movies. Period. The plot twist surrounding him would be epic in film. But those stories will never be told if the fan boys crap all over everything that doesn't adhere to and rehash the original trilogy's model and content.

Instead of Force Awakens giving us all new characters in an all new setting, new plots, etc., we got Death Star 3.0; literally the third iteration of the Death Star, which blows up a planet(s) just like in the original trilogy, consequently prompting a retaliation from the "rebels" who destroy it in almost identical fashion to the original trilogy. There was so much in that film that was parallel to the original trilogy. Its overt lack of a unique identity, of self, was almost nauseating. Under no realistic circumstances would a 70 year old Han Solo still be a transient smuggler. If the guy looked any more frail than he did in Force Awakens he'd have been navigating the halls of his ship on a Hoveround for Pete's sake. But that's how he was portrayed, because that's what the fanboys with nostalgia glasses wanted. Consequently there was literally no development of Han Solo's character from the original trilogy whatsoever. None. He should have been the cantina owner by now, the head honcho of the smugglers' guild, or retired and living a life of leisure subsidized by his illicit earnings over the years. But no. Han Solo was the same exact character he was 30 years ago (in the films chronology), thanks to the jerks forever stuck in 1977, who simultaneously gripe about a "lack of development" in supporting characters.

These guys are no better than the tools who think Rogue One was only "good" because Darth Vader was in the film for 3 measly minutes. Indeed most of them would probably fall into that category, because the only thing good about the new movies in their eyes, is what they contain from the old movies.

You're the ones ruining this franchise. Go away.