Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Pre-release)

All I know is that when I hear about "executives" wanting to "lighten the mood" or "increase the levity", I start having Jar Jar Binks nightmares...
 
No one will buy the statements no matter what. They should just ignore everything, make the best damn movie they can, and wait for opening day.

Head of Lucasfilm or Disney coming out and saying "Everything is great and we trust the director and stand behind his vision, this is all just part of movie making" will just have everyone saying "BS! Of course they will say that to protect their investment!!!"

Even marching someone out, like JJ, saying "I've seen a cut and it's great!" will do nothing either.

It's a lose/lose situation.

OR, better put... it's an internet situation... which is always lose/lose.
 
No one will buy the statements no matter what. They should just ignore everything, make the best damn movie they can, and wait for opening day.

Head of Lucasfilm or Disney coming out and saying "Everything is great and we trust the director and stand behind his vision, this is all just part of movie making" will just have everyone saying "BS! Of course they will say that to protect their investment!!!"

Even marching someone out, like JJ, saying "I've seen a cut and it's great!" will do nothing either.

It's a lose/lose situation.

OR, better put... it's an internet situation... which is always lose/lose.

Exactly right. This is a tempest in a tea pot.
 
Well it wasn't much more than a couple of months ago that exactly the same was being said about "Suicide Squad" on the back of the poor reception of "BvS" ie reshooting to "lighten" the mood of it. That was handled pretty well and all the internet crap died down very swiftly after its director added his voice to the "debate". I guess we'll find out more at the Celebration 2016.
 
OK, all you chicken littles are wrong. They are not reshooting 40% of the film. The reshoot so they are doing are mostly dialogue and character interactions, they are not toning down the war element. The executives are not meddling with the creators.

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/06/03/rogue-one-reshoots
So we're supposed to believe EW's "insiders" over other "insiders?" EW has a vested interest in giving LFL, Disney and others so that they can keep their coverage and put out special editions and have exclusives.

...not saying that any of these supposed leaks is giving us totally correct info - we'll most likely never know the complete story. Some of the "chicken littles" are probably just as correct as those the sheep that buy what's sold to them.
 
EW has proven reliable in the past. They don't have long history of making things up, or things turning out to be false. Things can change after they report something, of course. EW is owned by Warner Bros, last I looked. Look at the track records of the sources.
 
EW has proven reliable in the past. They don't have long history of making things up, or things turning out to be false. Things can change after they report something, of course. EW is owned by Warner Bros, last I looked. Look at the track records of the sources.
This is classic studio damage control.

EW might be a decent source, their direction sure changed (mostly under editor Jess Cagle) and has become much more a TMZ-inspired rag than the more dynamic mag it was in the past. It now seems more concerned about it's next exclusive or selling another special edition issue than about news. Does that mean they might put out info from a "source" that's more about damage control than being a real source? I hope not. Obviously, Anthony "I'm so happy to be an insider" Breznican has a track record with Star Wars info - but, that still doesn't make him above being a studio mouthpiece when they need it (a favor often gets a favor).

If they're doing merely (cough) "mostly dialogue and character interactions," it would seem a bit odd that they're bringing in Simon Crane to help out.

Either way, we have unnamed source vs. unnamed sources - and conjecture and speculation. Frankly, I hope EW is right and that this is just more routine filming and not Disney being a bit heavy-handed. (Of course, maybe Rouge One needs a heavy hand to right its course and it will be better for it in the long run).
 
Ok you are saying we should believe ALL unamed sources instead of EW, got it. EW has a track record being in contact with real sources. Media has changed with the internet more prominent in the last 10 to 15 years, which includes EW.
 
Ok you are saying we should believe ALL unamed sources instead of EW, got it. EW has a track record being in contact with real sources. Media has changed with the internet more prominent in the last 10 to 15 years, which includes EW.
Nope. Didn't say that at all.
 
Look, at the end of the day the story as "reported" was littered with innaccuracies beginning with the fictitious "test screenings" which immediately raised my BS meter. 40% of the film? Keeping the release date. Please. Multiple unnamed executives being involved in Disney's biggest franchise? Laughable.
 
Last edited:
Look, at the end of the day the story as "reported" was littered with innaccuracies beginning with the fictitious "test screenings" which immediately raised my BS meter. 40% of the film? Keeping the release date. Please. Multiple unnamed executives being involved in Disney's biggest franchise? Laughable.
I guess that's why the story took the internet by storm. I guess not many people have your "incredible" foresight... *that's* laughable. Generally, when a leak like this comes out and makes an impact like it does, it is because there is some truth to it. When someone like EW publishes info from other "insiders," that's almost always damage control.

'Inaccuracies' like your so-called "fictitious "test screenings"" are easily explainable in situations like these. It's known that Disney Execs did screen the movie - not to the public, but for themselves. It could've been a simple misunderstanding or context that led to that "inaccuracy."

40% of the film? 5 weeks or reported reshooting does seem like an unusually long time - I don't know, I don't film movies (a quick search couldn't help me find TFA's reshoot timeline). Knowing the powerhouse behind this movie, there's little doubt in my mind it's possible to do this and keep the release date. But, all that said - I do doubt it's 40% of the film; but, I also feel it's more than Disney would want us to believe.

Bringing in a guy like Simon Crane also sure makes it seem like it's more than " "mostly dialogue and character interactions."

But, that doesn't mean that this isn't a normal part of filmmaking. This kinda stuff happens all the time. It happened with TFA and the prequels (at least I'm fairly certain it did).

Let's also note that a lot of this info didn't come from your "unnamed executives," but from your favorite source for Star Wars info, Jason Ward and Making Star Wars, who said: "When I asked a few crew members what was being reshot they laughed and said “everything.” Of course they were kidding but from the sound of it, the shooting will be extensive." (Note: he said crew members, not multiple unnamed executives).
 
But, that doesn't mean that this isn't a normal part of filmmaking. This kinda stuff happens all the time. It happened with TFA and the prequels (at least I'm fairly certain it did).

Yep...with TPM it can be seen with the Ewan McGreggor scenes.....in the initial filming he had his hair cut short .....in the pick-up scenes his hair had grown longer & he had to wear a wig which didn't look right.....very distracting

Idris Elba famously complained about the re shoots for Avengers AOU.......having to return to green screen wire work just hours after filming in Africa as Nelson Mandela

J
 
  • Like
Reactions: JD
After doing a bit of Googling.....there were quite a lot of pick-up shots for ROtS......and quite a few involving Ewan also......He shaved off his beard after initial filming.......to film something else,.....then had a relaxing break for a while when he grew the beard back......so his pick-ups are identical to how he looked in the original shots......cool.......Natalie on the other hand was in the middle of shooting V for Vendetta,...& was shaven,....so she had to wear a wig,.....for the choking scenes & apartment shots......


Up to 6 weeks of re-shoots:

http://www.starwarsnewsnet.com/2016...ane-to-help-with-the-rogue-one-re-shoots.html

J
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JD
Wasn't this billed as more a war movie from the get go though? Seems odd to object to that way after the fact.
 
George Lucas used to assume a few reshoots on everything. He would build at least a few day's worth of it into the budget on all his movies.
 
Wasn't this billed as more a war movie from the get go though? Seems odd to object to that way after the fact.

Well, I think that's the point, they aren't objecting to the war element of the film. If the EW piece is to be believed and the reshoots are character moments it's possible they are intended to lighten the mood and add some levity in between the more violent parts. And it's likely the film will be rated PG-13 so what violence there is will have to be commiserate with that.
 
Back
Top