Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Most disappointing films.
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:06:34 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <vp62na$2hm5h$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vovrtm$18b9h$1@dont-email.me>
 <f0dc1e8c-b338-1261-cf4d-5ff6d5f503e4@example.net>
 <m1hut2FkdncU2@mid.individual.net> <vp2i8d$1qc5l$1@dont-email.me>
 <q66crjhf4tekv3c5hn5sgfopmptvtrncn7@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 03:06:35 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a2987bc3f0acd603b9e1b7715462e602";
	logging-data="2676913"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18pKweD1i9ILkpRA/kk6Kk46K4lb8wRb1M="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:m2wZSbyt0XmNt9Mnxka3sF36Tb4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <q66crjhf4tekv3c5hn5sgfopmptvtrncn7@4ax.com>
Bytes: 2735

On 2/19/2025 11:52 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:06:58 -0500, William Hyde
> <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> 
> <snippo>
> 
>>> Rogue One is pretty good.
>>
>> I don't subscribe to the SF channel, but they were on for free over the
>> holidays and I taped a pile of Star Wars films.  So I was able to watch
>> Rogue one last night, and agree that it is better than most of the
>> others.  Not a disappointment.
>>
>> But it was just jam-packed with stupidity, which can work with a light
>> hearted space opera like Empire, but not in this case.  It's nice that
>> the moral landscape of the characters is more complex, but that requires
>> a concomitant improvement in plotting to have any real effect.
>>
>> Still, I enjoyed the first half of the movie.  The second half I found
>> to be dreadful.
> 
> Yes, it /does/ rather resemble The Last Act of Hamlet, doesn't it.
> Kind of a downer, especially the first time one sees it.
> 
> It came up in my daily rotation on Monday. I enjoyed it, as I always
> do. So much that I didn't even /notice/ any "stupidity".
> 
>> I didn't realize that there's an actor out there whose entire career
>> seems to be as zombie Peter Cushing.
> 
> As has been pointed out, this was CGI. As such, it's not half bad.
> 
> The real question is how did they get the Princess Leia from Episode
> IV back on-screen at the end? More (and perhaps better) CGI? A double?
> A ton of makeup?

Body double with CGI.

Lynn