Talk:Rogue One/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Requested move 19 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request as the common name and as an overprecise title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story → Rogue One – Per WP:COMMONNAME, and the in article source from Star Wars.com announcing production beginning (here) calls it Rogue One throughout, with the only exception being the way it is presented on the logo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request

Please add a see also hatnote for Rogue Squadron and Rogue Leader (since "1" would usually mean "leader") -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Unlikely to be needed, as they are different enough to not need disambiguation. (Though using the full title as the article was at would also serve that purpose). oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
"Rogue One" would be a character from Rogue Squadron so would be a reasonable hatnote; there is no link to the Squadron article in this article. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Pretty sure they use color calls. IE Red Two, etc., not Rogue #. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
They used "Rogue #" in The Empire Strikes Back, and in prior expanded universe media, like novels and games. That's why the old video game series was titled Star Wars: Rogue Squadron. That's probably what the anon asking about disambiguation for. I think there may be a need in the future, but think this is a case where waiting to see how things shake out in the future is wise. oknazevad (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the knowledge. If we keep seeing this pop up (ie users looking for Rogue Squadron info), we can add the hatnote. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Rogue One → Rogue One: A Star Wars Story – The title of this movie is somehow incorrect. The correct title should be Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose see the discussion above. Per WP:COMMONNAME. - 15:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: We just moved it here per the above discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Character details

Is there a place to add Jyn's character details/criminal background as revealed in the first trailer, i.e. her "forgery of Imperial documents, possession of stolen property, aggravated assault, resisting arrest"?Pistongrinder (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should yet. We don't know when/how/why she does any of that, or if she did at all and is being framed. The last shot had her in an Imperial uniform. Did she defect, or is she infiltrating? Too many unknowns. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Forest Whitaker...

Why is he listed as a clone trooper? He doesn't look anything like Jango Fett to me... and how do we know he is called Rogue? JJsCat (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

He's not listed as a clone trooper, he's listed a veteran of the clone wars. More than just clone fought in the Clone Wars. That being said, I have no idea where they're getting all this info, they're not cited. Considering removing them actually. --82.40.171.48 (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. They should either be cited or removed. oknazevad (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Yep, also, 1 or 2 of the citations given seem very speculative as opposed to actual confirmed facts. Not quite sure if they meet Wikipedia standards. --82.40.171.48 (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Mads Mikkelsen is not playing a villain - http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Mads-Mikkelsen-Star-Wars-Rogue-One-Character-Isn-t-What-You-Think-79377.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.167.226.84 (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

i removed that "clone trooper" part after i posted here. sorry for the confusion. JJsCat (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

American ... film?

The opening paragraph of this article states it is an 'Amercian ____ film' this is rather debatable given the film locations, and cast being so diverse but also primarily inside the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknowndomain (talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It's shot abroad, but Lucasfilm and Walt Disney are American companies. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. It's an entirely American production. The producer(s)/production company determine the "nationality" (for lack of a better word) of a film.Pistongrinder (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Official Info on Rogue One reshoots (including debunking of making Rogue One lighter)

We have official information from Entertainment Weekly on the Rogue One reshoots including debunking that Rogue One will have a lighter tone: http://www.ew.com/article/2016/06/03/rogue-one-reshoots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.224.255.20 (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly is not involved in the film and there is nothing official about their article which says: "High level sources at Lucasfilm, speaking to EW anonymously, offered some details that place the schedule in context. (Official studio sources declined comment, saying they don’t respond to rumors.)" So even the article itself admits that it's not official. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, there is the Ralph McQuarrie tweet. That's pretty much a rebuttal by an involved party. oknazevad (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
His tweet says "Attn: bloggers. I’m reading some horseshit rumors tonight. You know where to find me. Do your jobs." He doesn't specify which rumors but he must be referring to the rumors that he has written a new script and will co-direct reshoots, not rumors about the tone of the film. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
True, but the point, more than anything, is that the various rumors are dubious value in the first place. Don't think we can, with any certainty, describe the purpose of the reshoots, and that the initial Page Six report is likely gossip column pot stirring. Wouldn't be the first time Page Six has pulled that. oknazevad (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Confirmation Vader will be voiced once again by James Earl Jones and confirmation Spencer Wilding is one of Vader's body stunt doubles

https://twitter.com/breznican/status/745976382266630144 - Confirmation that Spencer Wilding is one of Vader's stunt doubles

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/06/23/darth-vader-rogue-one-star-wars - James Earl Jones confirmed to voice him again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.141.201 (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source and should be disregarded. Entertainment Weekly, on the other hand, has a very interesting article as it's largely based on an interview with Kathleen Kennedy rather than reporting rumours. Cnbrb (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Spencer Wilding... Again

User 85.92.166.99 has been adding Spencer Wilding as Darth Vader. I've reverted him twice now, but I don't want to end up in an endless edit war with him over this. Is there any recourse to prevent people from adding Spencer in without a reliable source? jmcgowan2 (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You could request for the article to be semi-protected for a few weeks? Cnbrb (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I've requested pending changes protection for the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Did you ever get a response from the pending changes request? It seems we're now having trouble with Gary Whitta being added repeatedly :( jmcgowan2 (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
His role as Darth Vader in Rogue One is listed in the Filmography section of the Spencer Wilding Wikipedia page. There's a source, though it appears to be an unreliable one. It seems to me that if it doesn't belong here yet, then it doesn't belong there either. However, I believe the opposite is also true: If it's OK on that page, it has to be OK here too. My opinion is to take it off the other page until we know for sure, i.e. have a reliable source.Pistongrinder (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the same rumor, not announcement. Should be removed there too. oknazevad (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
You beat me to the punch!:) Thanks for your reversion over there. Looks likes it's suffering from the same vandalism.Pistongrinder (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Cast section

The cast section reads like most of it has been lifted from press releases. It really needs to be rewritten. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Billing Block

The English version of the new trailer didn't feature a billing block, but the French version did. Star Wars FR's official YouTube page put out the VF of the trailer tonight and it features this billing block. The titles are in French, but since it's from an official page, I believe we can still use it as a source. Is there a policy for this? We should jump on this ASAP, because it lists two new producers and Tony Gilroy as a writer, as well as an official order for the primary cast. -RM (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Official trailer on an official channel, seems legit to me. Don't know what more we would want for official credits at this point as those billing blocks are more reliable than newspaper reports. Canterbury Tail talk 12:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I'll make a few edits now then. -RM (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Here is a third party source that has a screen grab of the billing block, if it needed to be used to cite inline, especially for the writing credits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Bail Organa/Jimmy Smits

It looks like Bail Organa is in the movie. See [1] and [2]. Is this enough confirmation to add Smits as a cast member?Pistongrinder (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind. Looks like he's already been added (not as a main character, but all indications are it's a cameo role anyway).Pistongrinder (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

New information about the statistics on the new Rogue One trailer shown during the Olympics

http://deadline.com/2016/08/rogue-one-rio-olympics-trailer-social-media-traffic-1201803372/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:9040:3F00:A4F9:345D:CD05:515D (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No toilet breaks

According to this, the actors were not allowed toilet breaks during filming, which added to the intensity of the scenes. Worth adding somewhere, or too trivial?Pistongrinder (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Too trivial, I think. oknazevad (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
This is based on an appearance on Colbert. It appeared to me to be a joke. Alaney2k (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Darth Vader

I don't know if you can count this or this as credible sources, but it looks like the Darth Vader rumors are ramping up. An actor has allegedly been named to play the part (Vader's body anyway). It's probably still too early to include anything on the page, and an official announcement may never be made before the movie's release. Just something to keep an eye on.Pistongrinder (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

These are primarily rumours and so I wouldn't say they're credible. Is it likely Vader will be in the movie? Yes. Is it likely this guy will be in the suit? Maybe. But there's no official confirmation on that just yet. Things may change soon. --Jsngrwd (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It appears that someone has added in the information anyway. Looking at the reference, it says that the actor will 'reportedly' play Vader and references the same flickering myth articles given above. Given the sources, I'd like to revert the addition, but will wait a bit to see if any more comments pop up here. JMcGowan2 (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I personally don't mind it being there, although someone will probably slap it with a Crystal Ball label. Perhaps it would be better mentioned in the sentence below, along the lines of: "rumours that Welsh actor Spencer Wilding will play the role of Darth Vader have been circulated in the media, but remain unconfirmed by official sources." - instead of presenting him in the list of actors, which makes it seem definite. Seem fair? Cnbrb (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Never mind, someone's deleted it. Best wait for official confirmation. Cnbrb (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Just brought it up as an interesting FYI.Pistongrinder (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Still too early to make an addition to the page, but just a head's up for those interested: Multiple outlets are saying Darth Vader is featured in "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story - The Official Visual Story Guide." Looks like he'll be in the movie for sure. As to when the announcement becomes official and we can add it to this page, however, is still anyone's guess.Pistongrinder (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A persistent and widely reported rumor merits inclusion on its own. Also, mentioning the rumor will stop (some) people from adding to the cast list. --198.98.255.234 (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The main article contains a typo. The actor's name rumored to be one of the actors playing Darth Vader is Spencer Wilding, not Specer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.148.228.39 (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Rogue One box office prediction

Can we add this into Rogue One's page? Boxoffice.com predicts a $135M US opening weekend for Rogue One and a final domestic gross of $405 million: http://pro.boxoffice.com/long-range-forecast-rogue-one-star-wars-story-collateral-beauty-space-us/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B014:C5BB:1441:DAEB:625A:F26E (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

No. The idle speculation of a single columnist isn't important enough to include. oknazevad (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Really? Because this is the same site that is predicting an $88M OW for Doctor Strange. That is allowed, yet this prediction for Rogue One isn't? How unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.219.235 (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. oknazevad (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Box office predictions are okay to add, as long as the heading is "Box office projections" or the like, and it is clear that these are just industry estimates. Obviously once the film opens these can be removed, unless the predicted numbers are somehow useful in comparing the actuals (ie blew the predictions out of the water, or were way under, etc.). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

But, these industry estimates are from the same site that is predicting an $88M opening weekend for Doctor Strange. So, if that can be allowed, how come it can't for Rogue One? I really think it should be permitted for the $135M opening weekend and final Us domestic gross prediction of $405M for Rogue One should go up on its Wikipedia page. So, please Favre1fan93. Could u PLEASE for me add this box office prediction to Rogue One's wiki page? Please. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.219.235 (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The article isn't protected. You're free to edit it and add this content if you choose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Favre1fan93. I've added the content, but, I need u to source it for me. Here's the link to help you: http://pro.boxoffice.com/long-range-forecast-rogue-one-star-wars-story-collateral-beauty-space-us/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.219.235 (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Somebody changed the numbers [3] and it was removed as unsourced. I have readded the orignal numbers with the source and another sourced prediction from Forbes.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Constant vandalism

I believe this page has been vandalized multiple times by an IP user who's IP is 122.52.87.18. I looked on their contributions page and it said that the edit might be harmful to the page. -JustAGuyOnWikipedia

@JustAGuyOnWikipedia: Do you suspect them of IP hopping? I ask because, as of now, they only have four edits in their contributions and zero vandalism warnings. DarkKnight2149 17:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Semi protected edit request  Not done, as the page is not protected, and you have not made a request. Requests for page protection must be made at WP:Requests for page protection, but if it is just one IP. you need to warn them with the escalating warnings at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace - Arjayay (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@DarkKnight2149 Yes I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustAGuyOnWikipedia (talk • contribs) 18:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Official confirmation of Rogue One's runtime

Official confirmation from Entertainment Weekly's Anthony Breznican that Rogue One is 2 hours and 13 minutes long: https://mobile.twitter.com/Breznican/status/799739153218797568 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.219.235 (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Title in infobox

@Oknazevad: I'm not going to make a big deal about this, but I do think we don't need to have "A Star Wars Story" in the infobox. It is just an identifier, telling us that Rogue One is a standalone Star Wars film, in the same way that Marvel adds Marvel's in front of all their TV shows as well as The Avengers. For all of those examples, we take the title without Marvel's as the article name per WP:COMMONNAME, and then reflect that in the infobox. It is the important part, and the extra bit is included in the lead anyway. Again, this isn't a big deal, but that is just how I was thinking. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

See, I see a difference between the two. The "Marvel's" tag on all those shows and films is much like the "Disney's" tag on Cinderella, added for branding a generic name for trademark purposes. That is to say, anyone can make a version of Cinderella, and the "Disney's" tag is to make theirs specific so no one else copies it. Ditto with "Marvel's" Thor, as a figure from historical mythology. It just became something of a Disney tradition to add it to all films that fit a certain profile.
On the other hand, by making this subtitle longer than just one or two words, and putting it after the main title, there's more than just identification going on here. If they were just interested in mere identification they could have called it Star Wars: Rogue One, just as the TV series lead with the "Star Wars" in their titles. The distinctness of the subtitle is a specific creative choice. We already have the article at the briefer title, and it should indeed remain there per COMMONNAME. (So please no slippery slope arguments from anyone. Not directed at you, Adam, specifically, but I've seen it on too many discussions regarding film titles, and Star Wars titles in particular, to not nip it in the bud.) But there's really no reason not to use the full title in the infobox. oknazevad (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't really agree with that interpretation of the whole Marvel's thing, especially since The Avengers is the only film they have done it for. And the reason they used "A Star Wars Story" instead of just "Star Wars:" is that they want to differentiate the anthology films from the saga films. I just think the infobox should reflect the COMMONNAME that we are using for the article. But again, I'm not going to make a big deal about it. If there isn't any support for this, I'll drop it. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I had removed A Star Wars Story yesterday because I've always seen the title as Rogue One and the rest as more of an explanation to separate it from the saga movies. I guess the defining question would be whether or not A Star Wars Story is actually part of the title or not. jmcgowan2 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
It is. It's in the billing block of the poster, which is the official title. oknazevad (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Here's the official billing block - it's in the small print as well as the logo. I'd say it's probably the official title. Cnbrb (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
It is the official title, that isn't what is being disputed. The reason we don't include it in the article title is because of WP:COMMONNAME. I thought we should use this COMMONNAME in the infobox as well and just keep the official title for the lead and a mention in the body, but that was just because of previous experience doing that and it working well. If people are against it, then that's fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Rogue One should be in the infobox, per WP:COMMONNAME and similar situations at The Avengers (2012 film) and Dr. Strangelove, which use The Avengers and Dr. Strangelove in the infobox over Marvel's The Avengers and Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is for article titles. The infobox should contain the full title per the film poster's billing block, as the purpose of the infobox is to contain a summary of information about the film. That includes it's full title. oknazevad (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The infobox should match what the article title is. And then the lead should include wording like "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, or simply Rogue One" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, we're just going to have to disagree. Let's see what others say. oknazevad (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I think Rogue One is more concise and still clearly gets the title across: writing "A Star Wars Story" in the article more than just a couple of times would be overkill. I like the idea of having Rogue One written in most places, and having the full title in the lead. -RM (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that A Star Wars Story is part of the title, especially considering the prelude novel is titled Catalyst: A Rogue One Story. DarkKnight2149 18:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to use the infobox title as a space to present a longer title, but there isn't a hard and fast Wikiepdia rule on this. According to the manual of style on infoboxes, an infobox title "should be named the common name of the article's subject but may contain the full (official) name; this does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title." So in short, either is permissible. Personally, I'd keep "a Star Wars Story" in the box.Cnbrb (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that keeping "A Star Wars Story" is probably the better solution. DarkKnight2149 18:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Official Box Office Prediction from Hollywood Reporter

Hollywood Reporter is predicting a $130M-$150M opening weekend for Rogue One: A Star Wars Story: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/rogue-one-a-star-wars-story-tracking-huge-130m-us-debut-949896 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.219.235 (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Cast section

The cast section here sounds like it was written by some cheesy Lucasfilm marketing rep trying hard to practice writing trite cliches. Could it perhaps be made to sound at least somewhat encyclopedic?

24.68.94.146 (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Go for it.Pistongrinder (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I gutted it of copyright violations, mostly material lifted from starwars.com. There may be considerably more copyright violations. See [5]. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Part of the Star Wars Saga

The introduction paragraph to this page is constantly being changed. What is confusing to the average reader is the rhetoric which is used that makes the Anthology films, sound like they are a part of another continuity. The film is set within the LARGER Star Wars franchise -- which includes canon and non-canon media forms with the Star Wars name banner attached; set within the Star Wars Saga -- which includes all the trilogies AND the Anthology films, as the first standalone (a.k.a.: set in between other films) installment in what is officially called the "Anthology films". If there is needed proof of the fact that the Anthology films are a part of the Star Wars Saga, see here] that the film's director Gareth Edwards says that the film is a part of the Saga, by stating that the film is different "from the rest of the saga" by not including the opening-crawl text. Now that this has been clarified, the phrasing I have used or something similar should be used for the average reader. Stating the three as separate entities is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisneyMetalhead (talk • contribs) 04:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Official classification of Rogue One's runtime

Rogue One's runtime now officially classified is 134 minutes (2 hours and 14 minutes long): http://bbfc.co.uk/releases/rogue-one-star-wars-story-2016-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.22.19.82 (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Final Global Box Office Predictions for Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

Deadline has the final global predictions for Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, if we can add them to the movie's wiki page: http://deadline.com/2016/12/rogue-one-a-star-wars-story-box-office-opening-disney-felicity-jones-1201867465/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.77.225 (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

"wrong" release date?

This happened to me with Episode VII, too--all the ads say the release date is such-and-such, but lots of places start showing a day early.

Last time i checked, Maryland was a part of the U.S., but the Maryland Science Center will have 7pm and 9:45pm showings December 15? https COLON SLASH SLASH www DOT tickets DOT marylandsciencecenter DOT org/shows/i-rogue%20one-%20a%20star%20wars%20story/events

Posting this to Wikipedia and Wookieepedia (starwars DOT wikia DOT com/wiki/Talk:Rogue_One:_A_Star_Wars_Story). 71.121.143.132 (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It is correct. They aren't "showing a day early". The film opens on Friday December 16, with preview screenings on December 15. Hence why many films these day have showings on Thursday night. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

a lengthy quote from Princess Leia

Yeah right... you didn't bother to read the edits. "a lengthy quote from Princess Leia" is in fact one (1) word: "hope". And if you have a problem with the quote: shorten it. But adding character names and improving the text isn't plot bloat. noclador (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Your edit expanded a sentence reading, "At the film ends, the plans are shown being given to crew member Princess Leia" to, "The plans are shown being given to crew leader Princess Leia Organa, who remarks that the plans represent "hope" for the rebellion". You can quibble with my edit summary, but the fact remains that your edit added unnecessary, unencyclopedic details, expanding the plot section to an unreasonable extent. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2016

The professions of these two characters are exchanged: Donnie Yen as Chirrut Îmwe, a Rebel warrior.[5][8] Jiang Wen as Baze Malbus, a blind warrior who believes in The Force.[5][8]

The correct descriptions are: Donnie Yen as Chirrut Îmwe, a blind warrior who believes in The Force.[5][8] Jiang Wen as Baze Malbus, a Rebel warrior.[5][8] Jampins (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Already done by PabloBeal (talk | Contribs) regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC).

The fate of Jyn and Cassian

In the final scenes, Jyn and Cassian are standing on the beach and are swallowed up by the fireball. The destruction of Jedha clearly shows the catastrophic nature of the Death Star firing on a local area, and neither character is seen again.

So why are we insisting that all they do is embrace on the beach? That implies that they survive, and the attack on Jedha shows that it is possible to survive if you are far enough away. They clearly position themselves between the blast and the base, and we know that the base is destroyed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Canary Wharf tube station scene

I believe this was cut. Can anyone confirm that? I saw the movie yesterday and did not see anything resembling it. Alaney2k (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

A large portion of the Scarif scenes were filmed there. They are still in the film 82.33.183.17 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2016

I would like to add a hyperlink that links to Star Wars (film) at the end of the plot description 14.162.185.131 (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done That would be irrelevant and pointless. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC).

trailer v film

a lot of things from the trailers never ended up in the film and it seems the original plot from the trailers also didnt end up in the film http://www.slashfilm.com/rogue-one-missing-trailer-footage/ 2.24.132.172 (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Cushing rumor

I have removed all mention of this uncorroborated rumor that appears to have originated at one British newspaper. That is to say, all other coverage of this supposed cgi resurrection is just reporting what the one paper said. There has been no confirmation whatsoever, and Cushing certainly should not be listed in the cast list. Unless something official is released, this is just an abysmal failure of WP:RUMOR and shouldn't be included. And certainly no one should be sit warring over it. oknazevad (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Good call.Pistongrinder (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The character was indeed resurrected by CGI. Now, would you like a glass of water to wash down your foot, oknazevad? 72.83.59.98 (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Dude, that was 11 months ago. Though I will say that when I saw the movie the first words out of my mouth when Tarkin appeared were "they did do it". Lol. oknazevad (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Giacchino's alternate track titles in parentheses - anyone able to verify? Looks like vandalism imo.58.111.155.33 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Unable to corroborate, so I removed them. oknazevad (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Those alternate track titles are included in the insert of the CD. It was not vandalism. Giacchino himself proved their authenticity on Twitter. https://twitter.com/m_giacchino Adervae (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Those alternate track names are indeed genuine. They are found in the CD liner notes. Giacchino has a tradition of using puns in his track titles. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Weekend Box Office Results

1. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story: $155,000,000 2. Moana: $11,664,000 3. Office Christmas Party Par: $8,450,000 4. Collateral Beauty: $7,000,000 5. Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them: $5,030,000 6. Manchester by the Sea: $4,156,338 7. La La Land: $4,020,000 8. Arrival Par: $2,775,000 9. Doctor Strange: $2,036,000 10. Nocturnal Animals Focus: $1,391,380 Source boxoffice.com Byronmolina87 (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Nick Frost as Leia?

Can't find any source for that, where did it come from? 194.77.236.6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Vandalism. Reverted. Thanks for pointing it out. oknazevad (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Nevertheless a hilarious thought!  :-)) Cnbrb (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Plot comments

It's tempting at this stage to add lots of plot details, so I appreciate the efforts to reduce plot bloat. However I do think the plot summary should not omit Krennic's visit to Vader's lair on Mustafar, as this is quite an important scene. Perhaps the editors who are tending this section could see that it is included, however briefly, and if necessary, thin out a bit of copy elsewhere in this section to compensate. Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a very interesting visit, for the sake of the SW universe, but not sure how it drives the plot much. Krennic wants his Death Star back and that doesn't change much. No? Alaney2k (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I think by leaving it out, the article is then making a value judgement that it's not important. If it doesn't drive the plot, then perhaps the scene could have been comfortably cut from the film itself? Given the overall importance of the character of Vader, it seems odd that the Wikipedia article does not mention him at all until the last sentence. The reader is given the impression that Vader makes his first appearance in the last minute of the film, which is incorrect. There's nothing to lose with a brief mention of the Mustafar scene. Cnbrb (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I added a very brief mention. I don't know if it pushes the summary over 700 words, but I agree that it should be mentioned or else the summary misrepresent the plot of the film. Likewise, I think it needs to mention that Andir is sent to kill Galen Erso, as that's a major source of intra- and interpersonal conflict, but dont know how to do such smoothly.

Please don't knee-jerk revert my revisions. This was loaded with so much badly written prose that I put some effort into improving it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It's very tricky right now as there is so much enthusiasm over the film (believe me, I am enthusiastic!!) and so many fans want to deluge the article with detail. But I'll leave the plot summary in your capable hands.  ;-) Cnbrb (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

As per MOS:FILM, the plot section should be between 400 and 700 words long. This is well over 700. While there are some exceptions to the rule—like non-linear films such as Pulp Fiction—Rogue One does not satisfy any of these exceptions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Word count is 655 at the time of this writing, well within acceptable standards. (Remember, don't use the code but the display text, as links can be piped where needed and that can increase the count without it actually displaying that many words.) oknazevad (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine, care should be taken to limit the text in order to respect the rules, but it's a task that requires care. I would encourage constructive editing such as simplifying sentences to reduce word count, rather than simply removing key scenes and misrepresenting the plot. FWW, here are my suggested 20 words:
Krennic travels to an unnamed planet to seek support from Darth Vader and the Emperor, but Vader rebuffs his appeal.
No intricate details, but I think that the scene is important in that it dramatises Krennic's failure to win support from the higher Imperial orders and explains his eventual downfall.Cnbrb (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
As per WP:ATTRIBUTION, Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. So unless you can directly quote the movie as saying that the ship is Tantive IV, it's WP:SYNTHESIS. If you can quote a secondary source, then you can mention it in a footnote or in production or something similar. DonQuixote (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good point.Cnbrb (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, well I went through the text and thinned it out - generally, simpler sentence structure (e.g. avoiding the passive voice) helps greatly to reduce word count. I also and managed to fit in a shorter version of the wording that I thought should be included. As I write now, the plot is down to just over 600 words, so if anyone feels really crucial plot detail has been unreasonably removed, there is scope to add small bits of text. My suggestion is that if you can convey something important in just one adjective or verb, that will work best. 12:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

WEIGHT and digital Peter Cushing

I understand Ehrlich's criticism, but why is his opinion given half a paragraph, and the only time CGI Peter Cushing is mentioned in any detail? A more common view in reviews I've seen[6][7][8][9] is that it's debateably unethical and definitely not "there yet" with regard to the convincingness of the CGI, but still looks better than most comparable attempts.

Additionally, it's kind of nitpicky, but "Young Grand Moff Tarkin" is factually inaccurate, since the film is set immediately before the only other film the character appeared in, and (spoilers for A New Hope) it portrays him near the very end of his life. Obviously what Ehrlich meant was "Young(er) [Peter Cushing]" (as in 17 years younger than he was when he died). I don't think we should be quoting a portion of the review that contains factually inaccurate wording, if at all.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Commented.
Off-topic clarification of my personal view. Only posted this here to preemptively counter the "you only say WEIGHT because you agree with the view you say is the majority view", as this seems to come up every time I talk about due weight.

By the way, if anything I'm personally probably closer to Ehrlich than to Stuckman, Chipman, Rolfe, Lemire or Duralde in my view of the ethics of the whole thing, and I haven't seen any of the other examples they cited so I don't know who is right on whether or not Rogue One is above-average on a technical level when it comes to CGI recreations of dead or aged actors, so I'm technically neutral on which view should be given more weight. (I don't recall any other films I've seen where CGI was used to recreate a dead or aged actor's face, and although I have seen Prometheus and that DiCaprio Hoover biopic, I can't say whether I thought this movie was more or less convincing than either of those.) I haven't done a thorough survey (those were just the four reviews I happened to have seen before coming here), so I may well be wrong in speculating that Ehrlich is in the minority, but whether I'm right or wrong, at least providing token mention of both sides is probably the way to go.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of...

The credit listing currently reading reads;

  • "Peter Cushing and Guy Henry as Grand Moff Tarkin..."

I didn't see the credits at the end of the film so I'm not sure what's there, but wouldn't

  • "Guy Henry as Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin..."

or something like that, be a little more accurate and appropriate? Peter Cushing is dead. He's not actually in this film playing anyone.

Discuss - theWOLFchild 11:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Cushing is listed in the credits as something like "Special thanks to Peter Cushing, OBE." He's not listed as playing a character; though it still makes sense to include him in the cast list since Wikipedia often includes un-credited actors in cast lists. Perhaps "Guy Henry as Grand Moff Tarkin (with digital make-up of Peter Cushing's likeness)" might make sense. 72.83.59.98 (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I was looking out for that, and I think that was it, or something like "special credit to" or "special mention of". Rolfe and Matei also speculated on whether Cushing's estate signed off on it, or if their signing off on it was a legal requirement. I heard (I think from Stuckman?) that it was mo-cap, and the voice obviously wasn't the real Peter Cushing but someone doing a (very realistic, per Rolfe) impression. I don't think we should say "Henry as Cushing as Tarkin", though, since Cushing was neither a character in the film nor an actor who had any direct involvement in the film. Obviously, our coverage of the whole thing is insufficient at the moment, but maybe a paragraph could be added to the "Cast" section about CGI Cushing-as-Tarkin, mention the actor (actors? Were the mo-cap performance and the voice the same person?) and critical reception thereof, rather than overwhelming the main "Reception" section with conflicting views of this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I have interpreted the film and the few interviews we have as indicating that Guy Henry was cast as Tarkin, and he did a physical and vocal impression of Cushing for the role. Then, to make the character look like the Tarkin we know, digital makeup was added to give him Cushing's face. So Henry as Tarkin, and then we can discus the effects and perhaps a note on the involvement of Cushing's estate if that information is available. We definitely should not be implying that Cushing was somehow involved himself, which is how I have seen some outlets talking about it, with some people speaking as if Cushing is portraying the character, which is obviously impossible. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Just saw the film again, and the end credits have "Special acknowledgement to Peter Cushing" at the end of the cast. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Not technically "impossible". If any of the lines delivered by the character were actually stock recordings of the actual Cushing, or if a photo or any footage of the actual Cushing-as-Tarkin appeared in the film, then it would still be Cushing as Tarkin in a manner of speaking, similar to how Gerard Sanders "played" Howard Stark in Iron Man even though it was a single still photo of him in a suit. IMDb, if I recall, marks such "performances" as "stock footage".I don't think any of that is the case here, mind you; just a technicality. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but I think you know what I meant. We shouldn't be implying that Cushing portrayed Tarkin in this film since it is clear that he didn't. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

American?

This film has a British star, a British director and was filmed in Britain. Why is it listed only as American? Is there a definition for the nationality of a film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.21.175 (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The production company, Lucasfilm, is American, which makes it an American film. Calidum 05:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Lucasfilm is American; funding was American. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Starring Riz Ahmed

I don't think Riz Ahmed was billed on the film's posters, yet he's listed in the infobox as a star. I think he was in the film's credits, but according to Template:Infobox film#TemplateData, and following the precedents of other films, only actors from the billing block should be included in the infobox. Unless I just misread the poster. CamelCase (Talk | Contribs) 05:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed You are correct. The infobox goes by billing block, unless there is consensus to otherwise. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 05:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Well he has a fairly major role in the movie, but yeah, he is not billed on the poster. http://www.thewrap.com/rogue-one-star-wars-poster-gareth-edwards-felicity-jones/ Peter K Burian (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Stand alone?

How is this movie "the first stand alone film" of the anthology? Maikel (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The article says: "It is the first stand-alone film in the Star Wars Anthology series." Follow the Anthology link for the explanation. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Item of Contention: Should we quote Box office Mojo or News items re: gross?

Who should we quote re: how much this movie has grossed to date? Mojo uses some estimate; in this case it is very high at $706M.

Meanwhile News articles seem to use lower amounts such as $687.7M http://variety.com/2016/film/news/rogue-one-box-office-2016-third-highest-grossing-1201950311/ and www.cbr.com/rogue-one-is-now-the-third-highest-grossing-u-s-film-of-2016/ 20 hours ago Rogue One: has grossed $687.7 million worldwide.... Peter K Burian (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Note too that this source also uses the lower amount: deadline.com/.../rogue-one-sing-20th-century-women-passengers-wednesday-box-off...::8 hours ago - 'Rogue One' Makes Jump To $687M+ Global Box Office; Passes $300M Intl ..... years that one studio has released the four highest grossing movies worldwide. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
16:51, 31 December 2016‎ [[User:KoshVorlon}} deleted this entire Talk topic‎ . . (Reverted edits by Peter K Burian (talk) to last version by PrimeHunter) He then sent me a note that I had "introduced errors" by posting this Talk topic ... and that if I want to practice editing I should use the Sandbox. Perhaps he has not checked as to how long I have been editing on Wikipedia.Peter K Burian (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
We discussed the issue; I have revised the title of this topic to indicate the item of contention in the Rogue One article: whether we should quote Box Office Mojo or News sources as to the gross for this movie. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Your news links were published Friday and use the box office before Friday. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=starwars2016.htm currently includes a $18,176,000 estimate for Friday. It's an official estimate by the studio and not by Box Office Mojo. American studios publish domestic estimates for Friday, Saturday and Sunday before the actual number is fully counted and published Monday (Tuesday if Monday is a holiday). Other sites like [10] also show these studio estimates. For big films they are usually within a few percent. See e.g. [11] for last weekend. I think it's OK to use a source which includes official studio estimates when we round the number to millions or tenths of a million. (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

OK PrimeHunter, although I personally prefer Variety and similar industry news publications when they publish the actual box office take.

Also this source was published only nine hours ago now. deadline.com/.../rogue-one-sing-20th-century-women-passengers-wednesday-box-off...::8 hours ago - 'Rogue One' Makes Jump To $687M+ Global Box Office;

In any event, if editors are satisfied with using Mojo, fine. P.S. I still feel strongly that in the body of the text, we tell the reader as of when the box office gross was effective. When I read some Wikipedia articles about older movies, they often do not state as of when. And sometimes, I find them to be $100 million or more off the accurate amount, because their data was obtained months ago. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A box office source should be dated but if it's very recent and likely to be updated frequently then I think it's OK if it's only in the references like [12]. Your Deadline url is partial so I haven't examined it but with "wednesday-box-off" in the url I assume it doesn't include Friday box office. Maybe something in the article like Wednesday and Thursday box office was updated 9 hours ago. I doubt Disney had published Friday estimates at that time. Your working links are from Friday. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
One question, PrimeHunter, about the order of the Box Office section. It starts with the latest info as to the gross at Dec. 30, then in the next para, it goes back to November predictions. The info is not presented in chronological order. The Box Office section for Star Wars: The Force Awakens seems to be chronological. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Star Wars: The Force Awakens#Box office starts with the total in the opening sentence just like Rogue One#Box office. The total is the most important information to most people so it makes sense to start with that and add other details later. Readers can then choose to skip the details. Rogue One is of course still playing but it still makes sense to start with the current total. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Plot summary

Oknazevad has reverted my plot summary edits, saying "Choppy short sentences that have no elegance make the project look amateurish." On the contrary: I removed unnecessary words, simplified sentences, and clarified grammatical subjects. Here are some examples:

  • "Orson Krennic arrives to take him to complete the unfinished Death Star" - no one needs to complete something that's already finished. We can remove "unfinished" with no loss of information.
  • "Research scientist Galen Erso is in hiding on the planet Lah'mu when Imperial weapons developer Orson Krennic arrives to take him to complete the unfinished Death Star, a space station-based superweapon capable of destroying an entire planet. His wife Lyra..." - whose wife? Speaking grammatically, the subject is unclear: it could be Krennic's or Erso's.
  • "Galen reveals he has secretly compromised the Death Star's design so it can be destroyed, directing them to retrieve the schematics located in a high-security Imperial data bank on the planet Scarif." This has two problems. The first is that "he has secretly compromised the Death Star's design so it can be destroyed" can be simply replaced with "he built a vulnerability into the Death Star", which says the same thing in fewer words. The second is that, grammatically speaking, continuing with "directing them" could mean he did this while compromising the design, as simultaneous actions. There's no need for this ambiguity; we can just split the sentences as in my edit: "Galen reveals he has secretly built a vulnerability into the Death Star. He directs them to retrieve the schematics from a high-security Imperial data bank on the planet Scarif."
  • "Krennic directs orders that Galen's main team be killed for causing the security leak". Same information, fewer words. And "order" is surely the proper verb here, in a military context.
  • "Vader boards the Rebel command ship and massacres several troops in his pursuit of the schematics, watching just as a small starship escapes with them onboard." Again, several problems. First, "massacring several troops" is odd, as it's not possible to massacre a small number of troops. Second, again, "watching just as..." suggests these actions (massacring and watching) occur simultaneously, when in fact they are concurrent} consecutive. Third, the grammatical subject is again unclear: does "them" refer to the troops or the schematics?

I hope this explains why I feel my edits are improvements. Remember the words of Jefferson: "The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do." I also recommend this user essay on plot summaries. Happy holidays! Popcornduff (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Responding in order:
  1. That I can agree with.
  2. The context provides all the needed antecedent. Plus the rewrite was choppy and had no flow.
  3. You're misreading the sentence, as the active verb in the first clause is "reveals", not the past participle "has compromised". The revelation and the directing are simultaneous actions. This is clear from the commonality of the present tense between this two verbs.
  4. Leaving of "main" ignores that the team was huge, but only the few main heads were killed. As for the rest, it's a matter of timing. Krennic orders them to be killed, but Galen confesses before they are. Of course, Krennic has them killed anyway to establish his ruthlessness. The less active wording conveys that.
  5. Well, the word "massacres" is appropriate, because a) it's not a small number, and b) "slaughters" is incorrect in a battle scenario. Secondly, it's obvious the pronoun is refering the plans, as the troops are dead, except for the one guy who got the aboard the Tantive IV. Oh, and the word "concurrent" is synonymous with "simultaneous"; perhaps you meant "consecutive"? oknazevad (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. "Context" is a cop-out when we can simply be clear. Don't make the reader work to figure out who we're talking about. There's no downside to being specific.
  2. You're proving my point: the sentence can be read in multiple ways. Destroy the opportunity to read it in any way other than your intention. The point is to remove ambiguity.
  3. I grant that removing "main" is technically a change of information, but I don't think this is an important detail worthy of inclusion. I don't see how "When Krennic orders Galen's team killed for causing the security leak, Galen confesses that he is responsible" would change any other information.
  4. The problem is not exactly with "massacres" but the detail that he massacres "several" troops, as it is impossible to massacre a small number of troops. I think it's simpler to just write "kills several troops", as writing "massacres troops" without the redundant "several" would, I suspect, be deemed "choppy" in your eyes. And, again, "context" is not the solution to fuzzy subjects: just be clear and write directly, goshdarnit. (I did indeed mean consecutive, not concurrent. Whoops!) Popcornduff (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
"Massacres" has the advantage of indicating the one-sidedness of the act. "Kill" doesn't convey that sufficiently. As for the number issue, there's no fixed definition of how many constitutes a massacre. As for the first point, the sentence is clear as it is. oknazevad (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
"Massacre", by definition, means to kill a large number ("an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people"), so saying he "massacred several" is redundant and weird. Popcornduff (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do." Are edits always an improvement if they remove 50% of the words? Not in my view. A complex movie plot needs the full 700 for a full description of the plot. Cutting half those words would not make the article better. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Are edits always an improvement if they remove 50% of the words?" That is not what Jefferson said, which was to never use two words when one will do. Which means: if one word will not do, then use two. Popcornduff (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Need Consensus: Title of Sub-head re: CGI (help avoid an Edit War, please)

The sub head was titled CGI Likenesses

For some reason, User:Rusted AutoParts changed that to Response to CGI aspects

I reverted it but then he reverted it again. In my revert, I explained that the section discussed the criticism. NOT the (Lucasfilm) response to the criticism. (Frankly, I wrote 95% of that section so I know what it's about.)

Hence, I don't understand why the title of this section would include the word Response

Which title do you feel is most valid? 'CGI Likenesses' or Response to CGI aspects

Thanks. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The article in essence is people reacting towards the CGI, a "critical response". Some of which is positive or negative. It could easily work as "Reaction to CGI aspects" but I feel "CGI likenesses" doesn't accurately articulate the contents of the section. Rusted AutoParts 22:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
As a subset of "Critical response", I think "Response to [specific element]" is fine. But "CGI aspects" seems silly and unnecessarily vague. Surely there is a better terms for this? And a section like this should be much more balanced—as it stands, it is a whole lot of negative criticism with a few factual statements sprinkled through. It seems to me that the actual response has been far more mixed, with many people loving it as well (not to mention the amount of stories about people who didn't know Cushing was dead and didn't realise that Tarkin wasn't real). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I used CGI aspects as I couldn't think of an better word at the time. "Response to Tarkin and Leia CGI"? "Uncanny valley accusations"? Seeing as the reaction is more towards the CGI on those two characters. Rusted AutoParts 22:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
"CGI likenesses" is probably as good a term as any: "Response to CGI likenesses"? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Originally, I had titled it Controversy, but someone changed that saying there was no controversy. I think there is. How about CGI Likenesses Controversy Peter K Burian (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing controversial about people being critical of CGI. Rusted AutoParts 22:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
If it's any help, the reason I chose just "CGI likenesses", after the previous subheading was removed and not replaced, is because the term "likeness" was already used within the subsection. Adding a subheading containing "criticism of..." or "response to...", within a "critical response" section, seemed to be somewhat overkill. Regards, EP111 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The controversy is this. Many Reviews rave about the CGI effects. But some criticize it strongly. Should Hollywood recreate dead actors? = Controversy. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

But seeing that the sections not just about Cushing (Fisher is not dead...hopefully she pulls through her current situation) it's inappropriate in my mind. Rusted AutoParts 22:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Controversy Part 2: Is the CGI created Leia a good idea or just too weird. When I saw the movie, I thought Peter Cushing looked more natural than the pseudo Fisher. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The film does state that it is talking about Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. My mistake I was being too precise when it is self explanatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack8434 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I revised the title of that section to Views on computer-generated imagery. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
That works for me. Rusted AutoParts 16:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's always great to see a decision reached by consensus after discussing the issue. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Original Ending

It looks like we now know why reshoots were needed [13]. According to Edwards, the characters were not killed off in the original ending. Is this significant/noteworthy enough to add to the article somewhere, perhaps in the filming or post-production sections? It is a major plot change.Pistongrinder (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Read the article more carefully. It has nothing to do with the reshoots. DonQuixote (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes! The original script had called for a happy ending. During shooting, they decided that the two would die. ...... I fully agree with the current version that resolves this debate (written by another editor after rewording the content that I had written):
Post-production
On February 11, 2016, Disney executives stated that the film was "virtually completed".[85] Several weeks of pre-scheduled reshoots began in mid-June 2016.[86] In August 2016, The Hollywood Reporter wrote that Tony Gilroy had spearheaded the reshoots, in lieu of Edwards, and that Gilroy would have just as much say in the final cut of the film as Edwards. Gilroy was initially brought on in order to retool the ending of the film, which was not coming together as hoped, under Edwards' direction. A few small scenes had been filmed that would lead to a happy ending for the characters Jyn and Cassian; this was the ending in the original script.[87] (Some clips of these scenes had appeared in early trailers.) When it became apparent that Disney would accept the deaths of those characters – which had also been filmed – scenes shot for the previously planned happy ending were not used in the final film.[88] Peter K Burian (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
A point of clarification, the article linked above (relinked here) has nothing to do with the reshoots. DonQuixote (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. But the FORBES article that I had cited does: While the full "happy ending" doesn't seem to have ever been shot, it appears many changes were made to this final sequence all the same through reshoots and revisions. http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2016/12/21/rogue-ones-original-ending-explains-where-all-those-deleted-trailer-scenes-went/#6c5549183503 Peter K Burian (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

How many "troops" did Vader "massacre"??

A lot of changes and edits to a single sentence. (In the final paragraph of Plot).

The latest version: The Rebel fleet prepares to jump to hyperspace only to be attacked by Vader's flagship. Vader boards the command ship and massacres several troops in his pursuit of the schematics

Question 1: Was it really a massacre? Or soldiers shot during a battle in a war?

Massacre: Mark Levene defines massacre historically as involving the murder of more than one individual, within an outrageous moral deficiency: "Although it is not possible to set unalterable rules about when multiple murders become massacres. Equally important is that massacres are not carried out by individuals, but by groups... the use of superior, even overwhelming force..." "...most often ... when the act is outside the normal moral bounds of the society witnessing it... In any war ... this killing is often acceptable [so, presumably we would not call it a massacre]

Question 2: How many did he shoot? (I saw the movie but cannot recall). several troops? The definition of Troop varies from country to country but often it means quite a few soldiers.

Digging deeper, I learned that a troop comprises three to five platoons. The platoon contains from two to four squads or sections, each of which could have anywhere from eight to 14 soldiers. http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/How_many_people_does_a_troop_make__36415.aspx

Do we really want to say either massacre OR several troops? Peter K Burian (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the discussion above, I think "massacres several troops" is weird, muddy phrasing. Most definitions of "massacre" require many people to be killed, so saying "several" is at best redundant (you can't massacre only one or two people) and at worst outright contradictory (maybe you have to kill more people than "several" for it to be a massacre?). You're also correct in that "several troops" is confusing in this case, because "a troop" doesn't mean one person, even though the previous phrasing kind of sounds like it means several individual soldiers. IIRC Vader only kills around 10 people, maybe less, maybe 20 tops - so is that one troop or two troops or what? It just becomes a headache. As usual in these things, I vote for simplicity: "kills several soldiers". Popcornduff (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

To answer Pete's question about how many troops does he shoot, the answer is none. He uses a lightsaber. As for overwhelming force, he's a fully-trained Sith Lord, backed by the dark side of the Force. The point of the phrasing is that, despite being one man (or less, considering his cyborg nature), he easily cuts through many troops with little effort, in a very one-sided attack. As for "troops", see the discussion here. "Troops" can refer to individuals, so long as there's multiple; the technical definition Pete mentions is too US-specific anyway, let alone not accounting for other uses of the word. That's why the word "several" is needed, as it adds an indeterminate number to the sentence. The sentence is fine, please don't overthink it. oknazevad (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Box office over Episode II

In figure adjusted for inflation, Rogue One is now above one of the seven episodes of the main series, ie Episode II in the Boxofficemojo listing. Hektor (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Detailed plot synopsis

When would be the best time to publish a detailed, spoiler-filled plot synopsis? SpiritedMichelle (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

After the release date, which would be Friday I should think.--Jorm (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed SpiritedMichelle (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Why wait so long? All big movies (including The Force Awakens) had detailed Plot section 2 or 3 days before the start of American run which is usually one of the latest to start. And why mention spoilers in this context? People who don't want plot spoiled simply won't read the part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.186.218.127 (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
There's like fifty reasons? Not the least of which is "without widespread visualization, verification is impossible". Fake plot synopsis have been posted in other articles - include The Force Awakens - before.--Jorm (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The whole plot is already there - and the movie is out in most European and all Asian markets now, so reverting editors, who expand/improve the already posted plot is counter productive. I think nothing can stop this juggernaut. The Force Awakens plot was online hours before midnight showings began in the US. noclador (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"Eh, fuck everyone else, I want to ruin their day." Seems like a legit reason to do so.--Jorm (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Whom are you referring too? The people coming to an encyclopedia and reading a movie page? Those people are going to be spoiled? Well I never! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.117.1.11 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It's 23:45 in Europe now. In three hours also the UK fans will be online to edit here. What you gonna do about it? If someone doesn't want to know the plot, he can skip the paragraphs. But blocking people from editing is the wrong way to go. noclador (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Sooner than later, I hate waiting :) L3X1 (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Second-Highest Grossing Star Wars Film

Rogue One has now surpassed Phantom Menace as the #2 Star Wars film in terms of box office gross. Is this worth adding to the lead?Pistongrinder (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Coruscant in navbox

Coruscant is featured in a flashback for a fraction of a minute, between fifteen and twenty seconds, if I'm not mistaken. Would that warrant inclusion in the Rogue One navbox? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Where in the film is that? I don't recall seeing it. oknazevad (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Jyn Erso remembers an early childhood memory in which Galen and Krennic are socializing in an office overlooking the Coruscant skyline. I would include Mustafar, but there is no page for it and I'm unsure if there will be, given its rather minor exposure in Star Wars. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Are we sure that's Coruscant, though. It could be any heavily urbanized planet. I'm kind of surprised Mustacar doesn't have its own article considering its importance to the overall saga. oknazevad (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
A number of articles confirm it's on Coruscant, (and apparently located close to Anakin's apartment), but the question is if it's notable enough. It would appear that consensus is that it's not, which is acceptable. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 03:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It's a flashback to events depicted in the Catalyst novel, during the time period before they left for Lahmu. So, that's prior to the Rogue One film anyway. Alaney2k (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think {{Rogue One}} should include items which were only seen very briefly like C-3PO, R2-D2, Princess Leia and Emperor's Royal Guard. I don't even remember seeing Coruscant. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. They're not major parts of the film. The droids were literally just a cameo for the fans, and had no impact on the story whatsoever; Chopper from Rebels appears just as much as R2 (yes, he's in there.) oknazevad (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Plot section

@Oknazevad: could you elaborate on your reasoning for reverting my c/e? Because I think I removed some unnecessary information, added some much needed explanation, and made the whole thing flow better. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Just that I think the flow was worse; it omitted relevant details, and overexplained things poorly. The plot summary sits well within guidelines and covers all significant plot points seen on the screen. I don't think we need tinkers with it any more. It's coming to the point where changes are caused by overthinking it in an effort to chase an non-existent perfewction when the summary is just fine. oknazevad (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
When Krennic directs that Galen's main team be killed for causing the security leak, Galen confesses that he is responsible, but the research team is executed anyway. Jyn makes her presence known moments before Rebel bombers attack the facility, resulting in Galen being wounded. Jyn reunites with her father, only to have him die in her arms, before she escapes with her group on board a stolen Imperial cargo shuttle. This is not good summarising. Neither is this: K-2SO sacrifices himself so Jyn and Cassian can retrieve the data. Îmwe is killed after activating the master switch to allow communication with the Rebel fleet. Rook is killed by a grenade just after informing the Rebel fleet that it must deactivate the shield surrounding the planet to allow the transmission of the schematics. Malbus dies in battle shortly after. Jyn and Cassian seize the schematics, but they are ambushed by Krennic, who shoots Cassian. Krennic corners Jyn, declaring the Empire's victory, but Cassian, who has survived, shoots and wounds Krennic. Jyn transmits the schematics to the Rebel command ship. The Death Star enters Scarif's orbit, where Tarkin uses the weapon to destroy the Empire's base. Krennic dies in the resulting explosion, while Jyn and Cassian embrace on a beach before dying in the ensuing shockwave. These are all very poorly written passages, with no context or explanation, focusing on the wrong details and minutiae of scenes. Not to mention little things like On the Death Star, which is also just poor writing. And I don't think it is "non-existent perfection" to want to make sure the summary is actually a summary of the film: they wanted Jyn to get to Saw, not the complicated reasoning given here; the rebels bombed Eadu because of the stuff with Cassian and the general, not just randomly; Vader summoned Krenic, and then ordered him to go to Scarif, which is why he was there for the finale, but the summary says that Krennic went to Vader himself, and then doesn't mention Krennic again until the end when he pops up without explanation.
We will never have everyone agree on the best way to summarise any particular plot, but I think it is fair to claim that taking out information that explains what happens and replacing it with other stuff that isn't even in the movie is just wrong. I'm sorry, but this is a bad summary, and a badly written summary, so I strongly disagree that we should stick with this version. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Home media release

Digital comes out next month,with DVD/Blu-ray in April [14]. Should we wait until then to create a "Home media" subsection in the "Release" section, or add the info now?Pistongrinder (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Plot again

Had this argument before. Don't care. A sampling of redundancies:

  • "Galen is **fatally** wounded and **dies**" - you say the same thing twice - "fatally" and "dies" - pick one
  • "Jyn and Cassian embrace on a beach before dying in the **ensuing** shockwave" - as opposed to dying in the shockwave that came before? this adds no information
  • "**Unbeknownst** to Jyn, Cassian is **covertly** ordered by General Draven," - "covert" means it's a secret and unbeknownst to others - pick one

As for "no flow":

  • "Research scientist Galen Erso and his family are in hiding on the planet Lah'mu when Imperial weapons developer Orson Krennic arrives to press him into completing the Death Star, a space station-based superweapon capable of destroying an entire planet." - as I said in my edit summary, this is a pointlessly long sentence, especially for an opening sentence. What is the downside of splitting it in two? Popcornduff (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Sense of relative time in the story. That's what I mean by "no flow". Without the transitional words you deem redundant, the plot summary reads as a choppy list of unconnected events, without the sense that one event caused the next. Smuts being in consecutive sentences is insufficient to convey that. oknazevad (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing "transitional" about writing, for example, "is fatally wounded and dies". This has nothing to do with flow; it's point-blank tautological. "Smuts being in consecutive sentences" - I don't understand, can you clarify? Popcornduff (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
That was supposed to be "events being in consecutive sentences". Damn autocorrect. I agree with the elimination of the tautologies, it's the removal of the "causes" and other conjunctions that bothers me. Such as the sentences "Jyn, Cassian, and reprogrammed Imperial droid K-2SO travel to Jedha, where the Empire is mining kyber crystals to power the Death Star. Gerrera and his partisans are engaged in an armed insurgency against them." There's no reason for those to be two separate sentences; it is choppy and overly terse. A conjunction to tie them together reads better. The previous version, "Jyn, Cassian, and reprogrammed Imperial droid K-2SO travel to Jedha, where the Empire is mining kyber crystals to power the Death Star while Gerrera and his partisans are engaged in an armed insurgency against them." is better, as it gives a sense of temporal connection while tying the sentences together. I understand the desire to avoid run-on sentences, but swinging the other way too far is as much a problem. oknazevad (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rogue One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Note needs to be added about the actress playing Mon Mothma

A note needs to be added. It says that she "reprises" her role from Revenge of the Sith without mentioning that the two scenes she was actually in were deleted and can be found in the deleted scenes section.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahes still in the theatrical cut of ROTS, just not as a speaking part. There was a note as you mentioned, but it was removed precisely because she's still in the released film, and still in the credits of ROTS. oknazevad (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
oknazevad, where? We should then add a note next to it mentioning what you just mentioned.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Genevieve O'Reilly as Mon Mothma appears as one of the senators who greets Palpatine when he returns after being rescued by Anakin and Obi-Wan at the opening of the film. It's a blink and miss it moment and you actually have to look for her, but she's there. 209.53.180.75 (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Giacchino's alternate track titles

Is there a reason why Giacchino's alternate track titles were removed? Could they be added back on? 02:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.53.180.75 (talk)

The alternative titles have been added back on the graph, but in smaller font and in parentheses. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Errors

Star War Rogue One these characters did not die. This is what you wrote......killing Krennic, Cassian, and Jyn. Reeky54 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

They are clearly killed as the article says. If Lucasfilm ever changes their mind and makes a sequel then some might be revealed to have mysteriously survived being hit by the Death Star but for now they are certainly dead. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Mustafar

I was wondering about the note to not reference Mustafar in the Plot section. Can someone explain it? It does not seem to be in the Archive. Alaney2k (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The plot section is a summary of the movie (the primary source). Things not mentioned in the movie shouldn't be in the plot section. Nowhere in the movie is Mustafar mentioned. DonQuixote (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rogue_One/Archive_1&oldid=1137162069"