Nick1Ø66

One of the clips from Avatar 2 attached to some prints of the Avatar re-release is streaming here (for now)
 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rL95AXSYUC04Iv4GGADlpEm9CAZ0EotS/view
 
Why would they choose such a boring scene to promote their new film?  Yikes.

Meh. Here's the thing...part of what made Avatar so successful is that is a simple story. That story, which as you mentioned has been told many times before (Dances With Wolves, Pocahontas, Last Samurai, etc.) has a universality, and simplicity to it, that people connect with. It's an old story, and clearly strikes a chord with audiences. 
 
Say what you will about Cameron, he's a smart director. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew well enough that he couldn't throw all this new technology at audiences, and feature a film consisting entirely of blue giants running around in a totally CGI environment and tell a complicated story with complex characters. Avatar was supposed to be an experience that immersed you in a totally different world for a couple of hours. If you spent a lot of time having to think about plot, that spell would have been broken. From a filmmaking standpoint, by giving the audience a kind of cinematic comfort food in terms of the story, it made them more open to the completely new visual experience they were seeing. The audience was a fish out of water on Pandora, as the protagonist was, and by the end they went native as he did. It's brilliant what Cameron did, actually (and Cuarón made much the same choice in Gravity). The un-originality, as you call it, was a feature, not a bug.  And obviously, the success of the film speaks for itself.
 
That said, Avatar does in fact lose much of its power on repeated viewings (as does Gravity), especially watching at home...I enjoyed in the cinema, but barely got through a second viewing on Blu-Ray. When you take away the immersive experience, the movie's thinness in plot and character do come to the forefront. So if I seems like I'm a great lover of this film, I'm not. I just respect that Cameron knew what he was doing. 

The Durin & Elrond Comedy Hour?
Meteor Man and the Little People?

The Durin & Elrond Comedy Hour?
Meteor Man and the Little People?

The Durin & Elrond Comedy Hour?
Meteor Man and the Little People?

I agree the title is awkward, but given the necessities of marketing, I get it. Not crazy about it, but I get it.
 
In any event, the title is the least of this show's problems.

I agree the title is awkward, but given the necessities of marketing, I get it. Not crazy about it, but I get it.
 
In any event, the title is the least of this show's problems.

The Lord of the Rings of Power... problem solved.

That happened to me a couple of times in the last episode. When they showed those mystics or whatever they are, and the blond emo guy who looks like a Slytherin reject, I literally just busted out laughing. Even Galadriel's constant over-earnest anger is just funny now, and I couldn't help but roll my eyes the hundredth time she made a big speech about how dire everything is.
 
And stuff that worked so effectively in the films, e.g. the slow motion walking to underscore poignancy, border on parody in this show, if for no other reason than overuse. They've even taken to copying PJ's camera angles...there are a couple shots of Halbarad that are clearly lifted from those of Aragorn, to the point where the looked just like Viggo (more so than he already, and quite intentionally, does). Those elicited a laugh as well.  
 
At this point I can't imagine any of this is working out how Amazon planned. 
 
 
Only if Helsinki is on your left.

In this case it would be more apropos to list the names of the visual effects artists, no?
 
 
Getting worried Fellowship of Fans is going to revoke your membership card?
 
 

"Unfaithful"? It seems to be getting closer and closer to "offensive" to the source material.

I expect there to be a full explanation of how these "Mithrilchlorians" bind the whole universe and all beings together and how the elves can best hear their will and enact it.
 
"Did you ever hear the tragedy of Myth-Elf The Wise? I thought not. It’s not a story the Elves would tell you. It’s a Dark Lord legend. Myth-Elf was a Dark Lord, so powerful and so wise he could use Middle-Earth's Power to influence the Mithrilchlorians to create life… He had such a knowledge of the Power that he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying. The dark side of the Mithrilchlorians is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural. He became so powerful… the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in his sleep. Ironic. He could save others from death, but not himself."

I'll probably finish the season, and that may be it.  The visuals just aren't enough of a reason to keep coming back.  
 
There were a couple promising things early on...I thought that the portrayal of Elrond (and that early story line) was by far the best part of the show, which surprised me. And the initial stuff with the Dwarves was interesting (though all they did was try to copy PJ's Dwarves, with the comedy turned up to 11). But even that's wearing thin at this point, and that storyline is starting to feel like a Durin family sitcom, with Elrond playing the meddlesome neighbor. 
 
It's just boring and lazy. It's a lot more "quest" oriented than I was expecting, and the lead characters are all basically cut from the same mold...the "outsider" who is smarter than everyone else, while everyone surrounding him/her in their culture is an ostrich with their head stuck in the sand. It's just lazy. Every lead character has the same story. And how many Mystery Boxes™ do we have? Who is Meteor Man? Who is Halbrand? Who is Adar? Which one is Sauron? Is one of them Gandalf?  What is Celebrimor up to? What's the secret of the sword hilt? Tune in next week to (maybe, but probably not) find out!  The overuse of the Mystery Box™ is just another example of lazy, unimaginative writing that plagues so much TV drama. How many Mystery Boxes™ are there in Lord of the Rings? Zero. And the whole "we're not trying to copy the movies even though everything we put on screen says otherwise" just feels insulting, and invites comparisons that don't make the show look good.
 
None of it makes any sense, it's all contrived. Every motivation by the characters only exist to get them to the next scene. Stuff is written because they think it sounds "Tolkien" but it's really just gibberish. "No one walks alone" the Harfoots chant as they leave the old, injured and vulnerable behind to die alone. And what does "The Sea is always right" mean? And the reason we're given the Numenoreans hate the Elves is b/c the Elves are going to steal their jobs? WTF? (so much for the promise of no real-world political allusions) And speaking of analogies, I have to say, I still haven't figured out what the analogy about rocks and ships and stars is supposed to mean. Again, it's just gibberish, and now I think I'm talking myself out of even finishing the season. 

Oh good grief. I think this is the first time I've mentioned Bear's score (which I like) in relation to Shore's, and that was in response to another comment which was drawing a comparison.
 
And look, this is a site where we discuss film music, of course people are going to make comparisons. Especially when we're talking about two scores that are written for the same source material, and one is clearly influenced by the other. To say nothing of the fact that Shore wrote the theme for the series...Shore's music literally immediately precedes Bear's in every episode.
 
So if anyone is inviting comparisons here, it's Amazon. If Amazon didn't want such comparisons, they shouldn't have brought Shore on board. And if Bear didn't want comparisons, he shouldn't have created something so clearly reminiscent of Shore. Shore's work bears no resemblance to Rosenman's, but you can't say the same for Bear's to Shore's. So yeah, I think comparing the two works is more than fair.
 
And in any event, comparing the two scores doesn't mean you can't enjoy both. 
 
Not that you're comparing them.

Oh good grief. I think this is the first time I've mentioned Bear's score (which I like) in relation to Shore's, and that was in response to another comment which was drawing a comparison.
 
And look, this is a site where we discuss film music, of course people are going to make comparisons. Especially when we're talking about two scores that are written for the same source material, and one is clearly influenced by the other. To say nothing of the fact that Shore wrote the theme for the series...Shore's music literally immediately precedes Bear's in every episode.
 
So if anyone is inviting comparisons here, it's Amazon. If Amazon didn't want such comparisons, they shouldn't have brought Shore on board. And if Bear didn't want comparisons, he shouldn't have created something so clearly reminiscent of Shore. Shore's work bears no resemblance to Rosenman's, but you can't say the same for Bear's to Shore's. So yeah, I think comparing the two works is more than fair.
 
And in any event, comparing the two scores doesn't mean you can't enjoy both. 
 
Not that you're comparing them.

I hear a lot of people use “world building” when defending the pacing. 
 
Makes Lucas’ efficiency at “world building” in the original film all the more astonishing. 

(Nick) Apologies - my tone wasn't directed primarily at you, you were just the last response in the long discussion above.
 
Some were clearly expecting Bear to meet Shore's theory and talent and don't feel he did. That happens in every field - you have the 'top men' in their craft, who possess unusually good abilities and have the right circumstances, and then everyone else is doing their best to contribute their bit to that field.
 
If the most talented set the bar for what constitutes an acceptable score, where does that place everyone else? That's why, even if I accept that the theory-related arguments against Bear have some merit, how is he ever meant to produce work that you like? How is any composer who isn't in that top 5 list meant to please? It feels like the answer is that they don't, and that you were denied a potential masterpiece simply because not everyone's perfect.

You just answered your own question.
 
The soundscape is very, very important: leitmotives always become associated with certain orchestral colours, whether its muted horns with the Tarnhelm, rumbling pianos with the Imperial Walkers or tin whistles with Hobbits. To replicate those colours so deliberately is to invite comparisons and, in so doing, ensure the score lives with an inferiority complex.
 
Doesn't mean its not a fine, fine score; but the comparison is unavoidable. Only if Bear broke away completely with Howard Shore's practices - and, significantly, had the show not had a bona-fide Howard Shore piece in it - could those comparisons be avoided. As it is, they can't.

Oh good grief. I think this is the first time I've mentioned Bear's score (which I like) in relation to Shore's, and that was in response to another comment which was drawing a comparison.
 
And look, this is a site where we discuss film music, of course people are going to make comparisons. Especially when we're talking about two scores that are written for the same source material, and one is clearly influenced by the other. To say nothing of the fact that Shore wrote the theme for the series...Shore's music literally immediately precedes Bear's in every episode.
 
So if anyone is inviting comparisons here, it's Amazon. If Amazon didn't want such comparisons, they shouldn't have brought Shore on board. And if Bear didn't want comparisons, he shouldn't have created something so clearly reminiscent of Shore. Shore's work bears no resemblance to Rosenman's, but you can't say the same for Bear's to Shore's. So yeah, I think comparing the two works is more than fair.
 
And in any event, comparing the two scores doesn't mean you can't enjoy both. 
 
Not that you're comparing them.

I think comparison is the basis for at least a part of our opinion on all art, whether we realise it or not. We like to believe we judge things on their own merits, but how can that possibly be true? We can certainly try to do that, but our experience informs everything we think and believe. 
 
Do I think ROP is a good score? Yes. But I can't unhear Shore's treatment of the same subject matter, so of course the latter is going to inform my opinion of the former.

Er, while I absolutely agree Bear's score is worthy of praise (it's one of the better TV scores going right now), and certainly superior to the show it's scored for, there's no way (in my opinion) it's in the same league as Shore's work. There's just no comparison. Simply the fact that it's so derivative of what Shore did makes it inferior.
 
That doesn't mean it's not a good score, it is. But equal to Shore's work? No. Not in any world.

I would be perfectly capable of listening to Bear's score without thinking of Shore, by the way, just like I can Leonard Rosenman's. But, unlike Rosenman's score, here each episode opens with a (fantastic, by the way) Howard Shore piece.
 
Furthermore, each episode features timbres which are used very deliberately to evoke Howard Shore's "sound": We see Dwarves, enter the male voices. Why? Because that's an association we have in Howard Shore's scores. Elf scenes? Ethereal female choir and harps? Why, because that's a colour Shore associates with the Elves. Hobbits? tin whistles and uileann pipes galore, because that's what we associate with the Hobbits. Even the Hardinfelle that's used to score the Soutlands scenes (and Halbrand's) recall Shore's Rohan writing. Orcs get lots of percussion and very nasal exotic woodwinds. Why? Because that's what the bad guys are associated with in HOWARD SHORE'S SCORES.
 
If you don't want to invite comparisons, write something totally different. As it is, Bear didn't do that: He intentionally wrote something that begs the comparisons, and only serves to highlight the differences.

I think comparison is the basis for at least a part of our opinion on all art, whether we realise it or not. We like to believe we judge things on their own merits, but how can that possibly be true? We can certainly try to do that, but our experience informs everything we think and believe. 
 
Do I think ROP is a good score? Yes. But I can't unhear Shore's treatment of the same subject matter, so of course the latter is going to inform my opinion of the former.

I think comparison is the basis for at least a part of our opinion on all art, whether we realise it or not. We like to believe we judge things on their own merits, but how can that possibly be true? We can certainly try to do that, but our experience informs everything we think and believe. 
 
Do I think ROP is a good score? Yes. But I can't unhear Shore's treatment of the same subject matter, so of course the latter is going to inform my opinion of the former.