Are we likely to see an original cut of Rogue One? (possible spoilers)

[Ithekro]

Probably story flow issues. I think they originally thought that Disney wouldn't let them do the ending they did, and did something different, but Disney and the higher ups at Lucasfilm thought the proposed ending was logical. So it would make sense they might have to reshoot some scenes so that things work the way it did, rather than drag it out longer (running from the vault complex to the communications tower for instance) with a less dark ending.

 

[Tuskin38]

think they originally thought that Disney wouldn't let them do the ending they did, and did something different, but Disney and the higher ups at Lucasfilm thought the proposed ending was logical.

If you talking about the original ending where they didn't die, that was only in the pre-production stage.

 

[Tosk]

I don't believe Kennedy when she (supposedly) says, "There's nothing about the story that's changing". Sure, it may be a matter of degrees, she may consider the changes to not be changing the story, but clearly on a factual level the story was changed by the reshoots.

Also, we know that there was major work done of the film, as opposed to the normal pick-up shooting most movies do. I believe it was Riz Ahmed who spoke about how impressed he was that they would pull a film apart by the stitches and build it up again. That's not just some gentle tweaking.

(I say none of this to imply there's anything wrong with the decision to make those changes, I just that I don't believe that some of the changes were minor.)

 

[Christopher]

If you talking about the original ending where they didn't die, that was only in the pre-production stage.

It may even be an overstatement to call that the original ending -- it's more like they weren't sure they'd be able to go the route they finally did, but when they suggested it, they were given the go-ahead after all. Or something like that.

People read way too much into these reshoots, I think. They're a pretty normal part of the filmmaking process for movies that have this kind of budget and time invested in them. They're not that different from the rewrites a prose author would do on the first draft of a novel. Does anyone really want to see the rough draft of a book rather than the finished version? Might be interesting for students of the creative process, but there's a reason only the finished version usually gets released.

 

[Tuskin38]

The Rogue One Visual Guide has a screen cap of the TIE Fighter facing down Jyn

Pablo (who also wrote the book) said the book went to print in October, so it was finished before the final cut of the movie, which would explain why it is there.

 

[Christopher]

"A TIE/In starfighter?" What's that, a starfighter designed as part of a merchandising deal?

 

[Ithekro]

Naw, that's what the thing's designation has been since at least 1987.

 

[Christopher]

Naw, that's what the thing's designation has been since at least 1987.

"Tie-in." Merchandising. That's a joke, son.

 

[Ithekro]

Perhaps. Save it is (as I understand it) TIE/LN, if one used all caps. I didn't know that for years until one of the sourcebooks put the TIE Interceptor as TIE/in right below the regular TIE Fighter that was TIE/ln and all the other TIE models had always had the letters after the slash in lowercase...just hadn't noticed because we are so use to seeing "I" in front of a consonant rather than "l"....which is this font are exactly the same.

 

[Christopher]

No, I meant I was attempting to make a pun on "tie-in." Tough room.

 

[Richard Baker]

There were a number of scenes, like when she is in the tunnel with lights turning on in sequence from the sides to the top, which were never intended to be in the film. They just saw a potential and decided to have some fun shooting it, then cut it into the teaser/trailers.

Personally I hate that- the whole idea of a trailer is to give you an idea of what the movie is about, to help you decide if you want to see it or not. Putting stuff in which was never intended to be in the film to be is blatant false advertising. As mentioned up-thread, the scene with the TIE fighter by the console gives you the impression it is a very big moment in the film, an "OMG- how will she get out of this" which would make you want to see the film for those answers.

 

[Idran]

Personally I hate that- the whole idea of a trailer is to give you an idea of what the movie is about, to help you decide if you want to see it or not. Putting stuff in which was never intended to be in the film to be is blatant false advertising.

Wait, are they supposed to give you an idea, or are they supposed to only be from the movie itself? You can definitely do the former without doing the latter. What's wrong with a clip like this that isn't from the movie but doesn't grant a false impression of the what the movie's about? And where do trailers that don't use the "cut together clips from the movie" style at all fall under this generalization?

Just because a specific event wasn't in the movie doesn't mean that the event can't give you the right sense of what the movie's about.

 

[Christopher]

Personally I hate that- the whole idea of a trailer is to give you an idea of what the movie is about, to help you decide if you want to see it or not. Putting stuff in which was never intended to be in the film to be is blatant false advertising.

Nothing new about that. Tons of novel, magazine, and comic-book covers have shown things that didn't appear in the actual stories. The idea is to create an impression and draw you in. On similar lines, a lot of promotional photos you'll see for a movie or show aren't actual clips from the film, but are publicity photos taken separately. So it's never been the case that all promotional material for a film has been limited to images from the film itself.

In defense of the people who put movie trailers together, they can't know in advance what footage the director and editors will decide to cut out of a film months later, or what will be changed in reshoots months later. They also often have to make do with a limited amount of footage because the film hasn't been entirely shot yet -- which is especially a problem with modern feature films where a huge percentage of the film is created in computers after the filming is done. So sometimes they have to make do with whatever's on hand, whether it's intended to be in the movie or not.

 

[Richard Baker]

Let's say instead of the TIE scene which was never intended to be in that movie, somebody decided to stick in a shot of the Falcon exploding in the trailer for The Empire Strikes Back. Never part of the intended film, just a cool exciting shot.

 

[Idran]

Let's say instead of the TIE scene which was never intended to be in that movie, somebody decided to stick in a shot of the Falcon exploding in the trailer for The Empire Strikes Back. Never part of the intended film, just a cool exciting shot.

Then that wouldn't qualify under your comment that the purpose of a trailer is "to give you an idea of what the movie is about", because ESB isn't about the Falcon being destroyed or Han or Chewie dying. If the shot in the trailer was the TIE fighter killing Jyn, then your example would be a fair comparison. But part of Rogue One is about Jyn being under threat of death while on the tower. It's not the exact plot details. But it is what it's about.

If the trailer for ESB had a shot of the Falcon getting shot at that wasn't in the final cut, I'd be fine with that.

Edit: Well, maybe not ESB. The trailer for ANH or RotJ, though, sure.

 

[Richard Baker]

i feel the same way about the TIE shot.

 

[Idran]

i feel the same way about the TIE shot.

Again, though, you yourself said that a trailer is supposed to show what a movie is about. Are you backtracking on that and saying that a trailer is supposed to be what is in the movie? If that's the case, then fine. I'm just saying that your examples don't actually go against what you said a trailer should be.

(And if that is what you think a trailer should be, I'm still curious what your opinion is of trailers that don't use the "assembled clips of movie footage" style at all.)

 

[Christopher]

Then that wouldn't qualify under your comment that the purpose of a trailer is "to give you an idea of what the movie is about", because ESB isn't about the Falcon being destroyed or Han or Chewie dying. If the shot in the trailer was the TIE fighter killing Jyn, then your example would be a fair comparison. But part of Rogue One is about Jyn being under threat of death while on the tower. It's not the exact plot details. But it is what it's about.

Yeah -- it's like how the cover of my novel Only Superhuman depicts a scene that isn't in the book, but is kind of a composite of elements from the opening and climactic action sequences. It's not a literal representation of a single moment, but a symbolic representation of the larger feel of the story.

For that matter, I don't remember the original Star Wars containing a scene where a bare-chested Luke and bare-legged Leia posed with their weapons atop a craggy tor while a bunch of X-Wings flew by overhead.

 

[Richard Baker]

You are making too much distinction between word phasings - let me clarify-
When I see a movie trailer I expect to see what I will see when I pay to get into the theater- it helps me decide which tickets to buy. I understand how the SFX may not be completed at the time the trailer is created and how the film in final edit may alter some scenes. I do however draw a line when an extremely dramatic confrontation is created out of whole cloth just to generate excitement and was never intended to be a part of the film in the first place.

That is simply how I feel about it- you do not agree and that's fine.

 

[Christopher]

I do however draw a line when an extremely dramatic confrontation is created out of whole cloth just to generate excitement and was never intended to be a part of the film in the first place.

That is simply how I feel about it- you do not agree and that's fine.

Oh, I don't disagree that it's misleading. I'm just saying that, as a general survival tactic in life, you should never expect any form of advertisement to be accurate in the first place. I'm not saying they're right to mislead, but it's a given that they will, so it's healthy to view defensively instead of assuming you can trust them. Trailers are commercials, not documentaries, so viewer beware.