Jump to content

Talk:Rogue One

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fifteen years

[edit]

I discussed this before (Talk:Rogue_One/Archive_2#Timeline) but I think it might need to be raised again

In the film Jyn clearly states that she has not seen her father in fifteen years. For a considerable amount the history of this article it said Bohdi defected fifteen years later but some editors are changing that to thirteen years for no apparent reason, which seems to contradict what Jyn says. (In the previous discussion an editor User:DonQuixote said he had not intentionally changed the figure from fifteen to thirteen but only done so accidentally while reverting other changes.) At one point an editor claimed in an edit summary that some unspecified a reference book said thirteen years, but they never attempted to clarify any further. No one has yet given good reason why it would make any sense to contradict the dialog of the film spoken by Jyn. -- 109.76.134.53 (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again editors are ignoring the dialog spoken in the film itself[1] for no apparent reason (promptly reverted[2] though, thanks). Please discuss and explain before making changes that contradict what Jyn says. -- 109.79.170.63 (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all ancillary and official material, state the events in the prologue occur 13 before the main events and Jyn’s “15 years” statement is an assumption made by the character. To be specific: the novelization, junior novelization, visual guide, and Star Wars: Timelines state as such. If you want to ignore that, fine, but a note would probably be warranted. MontztheMan (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, Star Wars: Timelines (pgs. 128 and 129) places the prologue in “13 BBY” before the events of the Solo: A Star Wars Story prologue and after the events of Star Wars: Most Wanted (a Solo tie-in novel). The book also places the main events of Rogue One at the very end of the year “1 BBY” just before the events of A New Hope, which takes place at very beginning of the next year (pgs. 180-190). “BBY” stands for “years before the Battle of Yavin” (the one where the first Death Star is blown up). I would consider this a retcon however, so deal with that however a retcon is handled for film summaries. MontztheMan (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the WP:FILMPLOT should be based on what is shown and said in the actual film itself. It was unclear why editors were attempting to contradict the primary source for no apparent reason. If based on other sources editors want to establish WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to make changes or add footnotes that would be reasonable to discuss. My personal preference would be to rephrase to avoid the very specific time reference and instead focus on essential of _the plot_ but it seemed necessary to keep it. -- 109.79.166.12 (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Budget complexities

[edit]

The WP:LEAD section is supposed to summarize not supplant what is in the article body. The WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is also to summarize the key facts of the article. Note that Template:Infobox film warns not to "cherry pick" budget figures. The article body does not yet discuss the various budget estimates that have been put forward for this film, as an encyclopedia should at least try to do. The complexities of the budget are not easily explained. Reliable sources differ, this information should be explained to readers not left out because it is inconvenient.

Caroline Reid, in February 2023 The Sunday Times reported on the UK film production tax breaks. The article explained that a production could write off "up to 25 per cent of the costs they incur in Britain" so there are at least records of how much was spent in the UK (and even then some costs are unclear as the rental cost of studio space is likely amortized across various productions) but it is highly unlikely that there were zero costs for the USA parts of the production. Caroline Reid, later wrote an article in Forbes magazine calling the Force Awakens the most expensive film ever and in that article there were graphic that specified that Rogue One had a gross total UK production cost $280.2 million (caveat: it was specified in US dollars, the UK £ sterling figures were not given, the time and rate used for currency conversion was not mentioned) and another graphic saying the net cost was $232.4 million (approximately ~20% reduction after in tax credits). Again this is only the UK production costs, and it would be strange to presume that the film had no other costs whatsoever in the US.

It might be appropriate to update the budget range to also list that higher total figure of $280.2 million that had to be spent (even if there were tax credits later, that much money still had to be spent up front) but it is not appropriate to oversimplify the intricacies of Hollywood Accounting and summarize the whole complex costs with a single figure, that is still unlikely to represent the full cost of the film. Especially not without a proper explanation in the article body. If editors again make good faith efforts to oversimplify I hope that others will restore preserve the necessary details and also eventually get around to explaining as best as possible some of the budget complexities in the article body. Budget figures are not as clear or simple as they might first seem. -- 109.76.192.96 (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the lead section is to summarize the article body. The purpose of the Infobox is to summarize not supplant the article body. These two places both have budget information that the article body still does not mention yet! The article body should at least note the budget, and preferably attempt to explain why those figures are listed (ie the estimated budget cost when the film was greenlit, and estimated total final gross cost was $280.2 million before tax credits). There should not be information in the lead that is not even mentioned in the article. -- 109.79.168.37 (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to expand clarify and explain the budget in the Filming section. Sources only allow me to say that early reported budget was $200 million, I can presume and make an educated guess that when the film was greenlighted that was the intended budget but unfortunately since the sources don't expressly say that neither can this encyclopedia article. It is important that this encyclopedia not cherry pick or exclude the lower figures and attempt to explain fully and inform readers as best we can. We know the production included substantial reshoots, which cost money, but again the sources do not specifically state that reshoots caused them to go over budget so this encyclopedia article cannot say that either, even though it is the most likely explanation for the high final cost. Perhaps the text could be more verbose and specifically explain that Disney "benefit from the UK government's Film Tax Relief scheme which allows production companies to receive a cash reimbursement of up to 25% of the costs they incur in the country" but simply saying "tax breaks" seemed enough. I included a footnote to clearly state that the figures were in the bar chart graphic, and not actually included anywhere in the article text, hopefully this will help editors who wish to WP:VERIFY the facts and avoid any {{Failed verification}} issues. If other editors feel it is necessary to rewrite my plodding prose please go ahead but try to make sure the facts are covered and that figures are not excluded. -- 109.77.201.136 (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Cambalachero (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rogue One/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cocobb8 (talk · contribs) 15:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Cambalachero (talk · contribs) 15:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Images
Infobox and lead
  • "Based on" is for works adapted from other media (as "Iron Man", based on a comic, or "Lord of the Rings", based on a book). This is a prequel in the same media type.  Done, changed to written.
  • "... and digital recreations of Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher". Actually, they have recreated characters (Princess Leia and Grand Moff Tarkin) that were played by dead actors. As written, it may seem as if Cushing and Fisher appeared as themselves.  Done, clarified.
Plot
  • Jyn was rescued by a rebel, there's a time jump, and Jyn is freed from a prison camp. Yes, a lot of things may happen in fifteen years, but aren't we missing something here? Seems a bit weird to show her being prisoner right after showing her avoiding capture. Or was that the way it was shown? Not changed, this is how it was shown.
  • Subsequent mentions of Galen Erso call him "Galen". It is usual to use the last name instead. I've checked various other plot summaries and they also use the character's first names (is also the case for other characters in this plot summary, like Jyn or Cassian).
  • Is Jedha a moon, a city, or a city in a Moon with both having the same name?
  • "Krennic orders a test fire, which destroys Jedha City" Just the city? Didn't the Death Star destroy whole planets? No, in the movie the death star only destroys Jedha City (wasn't fully up to power yet). Clarified.
  • "Jyn and her group take Rook and flee the moon, but Gerrera remains there to die" No offense, but that sound silly from Gerrera. Why did he stay? Was that his home, or did he had some strong attachment to that moon? Was he injured and unable to follow the others? Did he had to protect something? He didn't explicitly say why in the movie, as he only says Save the Rebellion. Save the dream. The plot summary is therefore not for deductions on why he chose to stay behind.
  • "Vader boards the Rebel command ship and kills many troops trying to regain the schematics, but a smaller ship[b] escapes with the schematics" You said "schematics" twice in a sentence.  Done.
Cast
  • "Donnie Yen as Chirrut Îmwe: A blind warrior who believes in the Force." Perhaps it should be clarified that he's neither a Jedi nor a Sith, as that's the norm for all other characters related to the Force in the Star Wars franchise (or at least the films).  Done, clarified.
  • No reference for the last sentence in the first paragraph. plus Added
Development
  • Has Episode III being linked before in the article? If not, do it.  Done
  • "Assuming Disney would not allow a dark ending, Edwards had the main characters surviving in the original version of the script, but the producers opted for a more tragic ending and never filmed the original version." That sentence is too long, split it in two.  Done
  • The explanation of the multiple meanings of "Rogue One" should be better after the sentence in the first paragraph when the name was announced. Not sure what you mean here, I think that the sentence is quite clear.
Casting
  • Seems fine
Filming
  • Seems fine
Post-production
  • There's no mention of Lucasfilm getting Fisher's estate permission to do the CGI thing, as with Cushing. Fisher was still alive when filming took place.
Music
  • Did any of the work of Desplat made it to the final cut, or is it all Giacchino's? Couldn't find a mention of that anywhere, presumably it's all Giacchino's.
Marketing
  • "...which is 200,000 views shy..." Try to avoid idioms and use instead phrases with a direct meaning. Changed to short which sounds less familiar.
  • "the Star Wars franchise's greatest natural resource: daddy issues." Do not wikilink inside quotations.  Done
  • In the comics, you should mention the creative teams, especially as the text discusses a shift in the graphic style. No coverage of that to justify inclusion as a sentence or two.
Release
  • Do we need subsections? All are too small. Perhaps just a general "Release" section will do.  Done
Reception
  • Seems fine
Prequel
  • Should this be a main level section? Why not place it in "marketing", alongside other related works? Or changed to a wider title, such as "Related productions" or similar. Looks like other film articles do it in a "Sequel" main level section too (ex. National Treasure), will keep it as such for now.
  • Also, a brief description of what actually happens in the series would be helpful (one or two sentences would do it). Added a short blurb.

Will continue later Cambalachero (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero, I have answered all your concerns for improvement for now. Will improve on 94's suggestions tomorrow or after-tomorrow. Cheers! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from an uninvolved editor: I feel like the Critical response section needs to be rewritten from scratch, as I'm seeing too many quotations (one of which is too long it should be rendered a blockquote) that could be paraphrased as well as haphazardly juxtaposed ideas; for example:

Peter Bradshaw, film critic of The Guardian said: "Rogue One doesn't really go rogue at any stage, and it isn't a pop culture event like The Force Awakens, in whose slipstream this appears; part of its charm resides in the eerie, almost dreamlike effect of continually producing familiar elements, reshuffled and reconfigured, a reaching back to the past and hinting at a preordained future. There are some truly spectacular cameos from much-loved personae, involving next-level digital effects—almost creepily exact, so that watching feels at various stages like going into a time machine, back to the 80s and 70s."[186] Mark Kermode also writing for The Guardian gave the film 4 out of 5 stars praising the diversity of the cast as "Rogue One offers a welcome reminder of sci-fi’s power to envisage worlds in which race and gender barriers do not apply". He compared the film positively to Aliens as both are sci-fi war films with a strong female lead. He also praised the cinematography of the battle scenes which he said evoked images of the Normandy landings and the Vietnam War.

While Bradshaw and Kermode belong to the same publication, their sentiments clearly differ from one another, in that the former talks about general critiques on the movie's charm, appeal, cameos, and visual effects, while the latter talks more about the diversity of the cast, comparisons to other sci-fi war movies, and achievements in cinematography. Each critic's sentiments should be placed in the relevant paragraph for thematic organization. Furthermore, I'm surprised the article doesn't touch on what the overall critical reception to the movie was. A quick google search yielded articles stating that the movie garnered generally favorable reviews from critics on release: Variety, Business Insider, TheWrap; I suggest you include this fact sourced in the article. The Business Insider and Variety articles even contain pieces of information that make for good topic sentences to expand on (paraphrased, that is):

Business Insider
  • "The middle part moves a bit too slowly"
  • "some critics think the film revisits too much of the same material found in the other "Star Wars" stories instead of staking out its own territory"
  • "Mostly everyone, though, is impressed by how action-packed it is and by its commitment to cast diversity. Jyn Erso, the film's feminist hero (played by Felicity Jones) is a particular highlight."
Variety
  • "critics were quick to note the differences to the originals, noting the absence of Jedi, Ewoks and other familiar characters recognizable to the Star Wars universe"
  • "Critics also praised the film’s third part, which was overwhelmingly lauded as the highlight of the film."
  • "others felt the film tried too hard to please fans with overly-nostalgic moments that may not have fit the film’s tone"

As a final note, please read the WP:RECEPTION, an essay which, even though it should not be treated as a guideline nor a bright-line rule, makes a good point on how overlooked this section is on many Wikipedia articles. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy Thank ya for the additions, will look at it Wednesday or Thursday :) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that neither George Lucas's thoughts on the movie nor those non-critical reviews belong in the Critical response; they should be placed in another subsection. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is also somewhat of a drive-by comment, but if you want, I would be willing to help out with the Reception section. I've had a decent amount of experience with doing them and all too well understand the struggle of evolving it from quote and ratings-based to conveying proper commentary. @Cocobb8 If it's ok with you, I would love to assist in the Reception section while you focus on other aspects of the GAR. I'll ignore the other non-critical reviews and let you resolve them at your discretion. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcdiehardfan, would love your help indeed! Thanks for proposing! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait until that's done before closing the GAN Cambalachero (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcdiehardfan: Thanks for offering to help the nominator, it would really make the nominator's job a little more easier. If you'd like an example for a brilliant model, the reception section in the Total Recall article provides one. Good luck on you two. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy Thank you for the help, I will definitely use that for help. @Cocobb8 And of course, my pleasure. I went ahead and did a preliminary edit and plan on parsing it out across a few edits. I'll let you know when I'm finished. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick update, I'll get around to incorporating the other sources mentioned above by 1984 Guy soon. I would say I'm mostly done with my edits for the Reception, so feel free to do any remaining CE and other fix-ups in the meantime. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Dcdiehardfan! @Cambalachero, I am done with my other fix-ups, so let me know if there's anything else you want me to take a look at as I am leaving on a Wikibreak this Saturday.
Cheers! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rogue_One&oldid=1243252497"