Chen G.

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I agree. Film scores exist to accompany certain images and, especially with these leitmotivic pieces, evoke those images in one's mind as one is listening to the album. So the quality of the film is in no way separate from the quality of the film, and it shouldn't be separate. I doubt Wagner's Ring cycle would be what it is, if it were the same music, but attached to a lesser story.
  2. Star Wars - Live To Projection Concerts

    They do The Force Awakens live, so I'd imagine they'd extend that courtesy to The Last Jedi. I undestand its quite a lucrative endeavor.
  3. Depends on whether it represents something specific in the narrative. Sounds to me like general "bad guy" music, more than a deliberate thematic identity. Williams' scores (and really, every piece of leitmotivic music which is that long) are filled with little generic phrases that happen to recur multiple times, without nessecarily possesing a thematic identity. A good Williams, Star Wars example would be this little descending horn phrase that happens all around the finale at Cloud City. It recurs a good three or four times, but does it represent anything thematically? hell no. Its also true of his other scores (e.g. the use of tritones in Star Wars and Indiana Jones). Another example from a none-Williams score is the brass gesture that Horner uses in Braveheart (no, not his usual "danger" gesure - he used a different one for that score) before battles - its all over the score, but you'd be hard pressed to call it a leitmotif. Even in the Middle Earth score, there's a little recurring idea in the prologue and in the middle of the Two Towers (when the choir sings "Tercano Nuruva"), but its nevertheless not a leitmotif, because it doesn't represent anything; its just a Shore-ism. And you could find such examples in Wagner, too. I don't think there are any other real themes in there outside of the main three that we came to identify.
  4. But film music isn't symphonic (in the sense of a structured symphony arranged in movements). Its much more closely related to Opera, Operatta and other such programmatic pieces of music. Its intended to accompany certain imagery and evoke that imagery. You could listen to a recording devoid of dialogue and sound effects as you often can an opera, but that's not the purpose of film music.
  5. I think they were Uilleann Pipes in that score, if any. They're quite different.
  6. Its one that's emblematic of the bigger issue: that the film fails to bring a strong sense of resolution to a lot of its characters.
  7. Whatever. That still makes him much more deserved, narrative-wise, of killing Bellatrix than Mrs. Wisley. After all, what's people issue with The Deathly Hallows part 2 if not the lack of a strong sense of resolution?
  8. If its a movie you don't like - than you're right. Why suffer through it? But if you like the movie, why not? What is the score meant for, if not to accompany those images? The definitive presentation of the score is the movie, not the album.
  9. To craft a surprising film, you don't need to eschew planting-and-payoff; all you need to do is be very subtle with your set-up. So much so, that the audience doesn't realise an element has been planted until it actually gets payed-off. Some of the best planting isn't even done through dialogue. What you're looking for is that "oh, right!" moment, rather than the "huh? what?" one. Think about all the planting that goes into the introduction of time travel in "The Prisoner of Azkaban." Its all fleeting moments and throwaway lines. It doesn't serve to ruin the surprise, but to deepen the moment in which its revealed. There's also the issue of the placement of the planting and the payoff: you typically want them across separate acts, because if an element is planted only just before it pays off, it usually feels too much like plot convenience. But if you start placing them very far from each other, you need to subtly remind the audience of the planted element. And surprises aren't necessarily the be-all, by-all goal of a narrative, anyway. Look at Titanic: we know, from the framing device alone, that the ship sank, that Rose lived and we can very easily infer that Jack dies. Does that hurt the narrative? Not in the slightest. Surprises are cheap; suspense and drama are not. I think you're all trying to rationalize a supposed fidelty to the source material, where in fact the best way to honor the source material is to make the best movie possible, while featuring the same skeletal narrative as the source material. Anything other than the bare bones of the story is fair game to change, reinterperate, abberivate, embelish, shift, excise or create from scratch.
  10. Its literally the definition of Chekhov's Gun: the idea that all narrative elements should be essential, and therefore pay-off later in the story. To me, its a missed dramatic oportunity solely for the sake of so-called fidelty to the source material.
  11. There are hundreds of types of bagpipes anywhere between the Euroasian Steepe, the Sahara desert and Scotland, so who knows. Doesn't sound like Uilleann or Highland pipes to me, but maybe I need another listen. Do we know if that music is also from Williams? Edit: I've listened to it again. I say Highland pipes. Sounds a lot like this: If it was composed by Williams, is this the first he used pipes? Sidenote: see, mr. Johnson, that's how you insert humor into a serious moment well.
  12. Ron and/or Hermione should have killed the snake, and Neville should have killed Bellatrix. A character doesn't have to pay-off in just one way. They should pay-off and any and every way that was planted. I think the rest is just providing excuses for the writers to stick to the source material, even when it clearly goes against the most basic (and important) elements of narrative structure.
  13. I don't recall too much of the films' finer plot points, but I certainly don't recall them not making sense. I suppose there may have been some continuity issues, but nothing that drew my attention too much. There's no "if" here. Few and far between are the books that read like a screenplay. Most of the time, books are written with an ebb-and-flow that is fundementaly different to that of a film, and in that case making changes (beyond just abridging the book) is not an "if" - its a given.