Chen G.

I think "complements what came before" is the part where we have to disagree. Bear does not - indeed, cannot - quote anything from Howard's score, and in general his approach is NOTHING like Howard's, melodically, harmonically, structurally or orchestrationally. None of which, by the way, is an issue in and of itsel: its a different score for a different Middle Earth, just like Leonard Rosenman's. And as you say - as did I, as did most members of the board here when listening to Bear's score - when taken in and of itself and not as comparison to Shore's score, its a lovely, beautiful, moving work of musicianship. But Bear DOES try to pay homage to Shore, but in the most superficial, grafted on way possible: associative timbres. So, Hobbits still get celtic instruments, Dwarves get basses and tenors, Elves get altos and sopranos, Men get Hardinfelle, the bad guys get percussion and very nasal-sounding woodwinds. So there's a disonance between what the melodies and orchestration tell you - which is that this is a new score, for a new Middle Earth - and what the associative timbres tell you - that this is a score in the same lineage as the Shore scores. The fact that there ARE tracks by Shore and by David Long and Plan 9 only exacerbates the issue, as do the visuals. The score, like the show, has an identity crisis, and those elements that ARE like the New Line films clash against those that aren't.

I prefer to look at the content of the movie rather than at epigraphs: fact of the matter is, it would be the same movie without that epigraph as it is with it. But be that as it may: The thing that prompted Lucas to put that epigraph in there was Bettelheim's column in The New Yorker: But it was in effect from The Hobbit. Lucas also said he chose to make it green because he associates fairytales with nature and the organic. I keep on deliberating how much to makle of that. I mean, obviously Tolkien was big on nature, but except for these rather rhetorical aspects, I don't think its something Lucas picks up in any major way. And I don't want, in setting out to ascertain Lucas' inspirations, to pick apart every molecule of his film and find an antecedent for it.

Lots of people say that. I never felt that. To me, Kurtz compound felt every inch of the deepest circle of hell of Dante's inferno that it was meant to be. Spine-tingling stuff.

I just find it ironic: the original Star Wars, where Lucas inadvertantly tapped into these fairytale-like conceits (mostly thanks to the stuff he was reading at the time) is in this particular regard the most successfull. But then in later entries where he's consciously trying to tap into fairytale storytelling (mostly via Tolkien, to a lesser extent Disney) - namely Return of the Jedi, the Ewok films and Willow - it comes off forced, cloying and ultimately works to the detriment of the films. And at no point does it square off with the scholarly spin Lucas tries to put on it. Yes, Lucas did read in Bettelheim's book that fairytale heroes face trials in sets of threes, but he never really does that: it was probably on his mind when he wrote the Jabba short: first C3PO comes to free Han, and fails. Then Leia, and she fails. And then Luke and he seemingly fails. They're...not exactly trials, certainly not for Luke. So even that doesn't really hold water, and more importantly, it slows the film down almost to a screeching halt.

I'll put it like this: What about Star Wars is fairytale-like? Actually wait, I can answer that: We have the damsel-in-distress storyline. That's one. Even though, strictly speaking, Luke doesn't undertake the quest to save the princess until they're on the Death Star: prior to that, his quest is to get the Droids to the Rebels (we'll get to where that's from soon enough). But a damsel-in-distress story...hmm... I wonder if there's pulp sci-fi author, whose works Lucas knew well, referenced often in interviews and even quoted from verbatim, who wrote literally dozens of books based on that premise... if only there was one... Oh wait, I know! How many times John Carter have to rescue Dejah Thoris from implicit rape? Probably several dozen times. Then they bump uglies and have a son Cathoris, and now he has to save Thuvia. Then we get to Tar Hadron, and he has to save Sanoma Tora. And what about Tarzan and Jane? Same idea. Ditto with David and Dian in Pellucidar. What's in common with all of them? They're all written by Edgar Rice Burroughs. And would you look at that, John Carter's adventures are on a desert planet, with two moons, run-down earthen cities, padwaans (okay, they're called Padwars, tomato tomato), Sith, Jedi (Jed). Hmmm.... Okay, so we have the damsel in distress. That's one. What else? Oh, well, we have the everyman hero. Well, at least BEFORE Luke became the son of the dark lord and "our last hope" thing. Before that, sure, his father was a great pilot, but in and of himself, Luke is just an everyman farmer, a clumsy orphan living in a hole in the ground. Well, that's certainly not John Carter: he's an army captain, and when he shows up on Mars he's practically superman. Flash Gordon? Nah, doesn't fit either. Bugger! If only there was a book we knew Lucas read, which is about an everyman orphan, with a glorious forefather, who lives in a hole in the ground...hmm...no, nothing comes to mind. OH WAIT! And what d'ya know? Its two for the price of one! Both the everyman, orphan hero from a hole in the ground, AND the tetchy old wizard mentor figure. Actually, its three in one: what's the ostensible "moral" of the parable that is Star Wars? I need only quote that old tetchy mentor figure: "Trust your feelings." Well, that's pretty much what this short bloke above has to do. Funny, that. There are other little flourishes: we have a cranky old uncle in the guise of the "fairytale" foster parent. For my money, I'd sooner bet on The Searchers being the model than Sneewittchen. Then we have the fact that Luke doesn't know about his father's glorious past. THAT's probably Lucas thinking of King Arthur, although its scarcely some profound insight borne of a lifetime of studying Chrétien and Mallory. He's also given his father's sword as an heirloom, but I don't want to make the parallel to Excalibur just yet because Luke scarcely gets to do anything of substance with that sword before he loses it, and then in the prequel trilogy we see his dad and his future mentor ran through laser swords as though through tissue-paper... Actually, you know what Star Wars film is the most fairytale-like? Its CERTAINLY not any of the prequels, Lor knows its not The Empire Strikes Back by any means. Its DEFINITELY not the Holiday Special. Its not Return of the Jedi, and its not even the original Star Wars. Why, its: Yeah, that's some quality Star Wars if ever there was one. Its pretty much a ripoff of The Hobbit (and a nearly beat-by-beat dry-un for Willow): we have a diminutive hero, Mace (Bilbo) joining a group of Ewoks (Dwarves) on a quest to rescue his parents from the Gorax (Smaug) who lives under a solitary mountain peak (Erebor). There's even a giant spider and a wolf attack. Then there's a sequel, with yet ANOTHER old man with a staff and pointy hat. Our heroine stumbles upon his house when he's away and cleans it up, because Lucas lives on planet earth so he knows how Snow White (Disney, not Jacob Grimm) goes... And yes, I know it's overkill for a joke-prompt, but its therapeutic!

I mean, its a score of lovely colour and athletic melodicism. And the contributions by both Howard Shore and Plan 9 and David Long are all quite worthwhile. The main thing that weighs it down is that it sounds nothing like Howard Shore, but utilizes many of his orchestral colours throughout. So one is left thinking: "Man, are the Howard Shore scores awesome or what!"

I guess crime dramas just aren’t my thing in general: I’m not even that wild about the original The Godfather. But Part II especially…when I last watched it, it all but passed right through me. Did nothing.

I've never ever felt that or agreed with that. There's nothing The Godfather: Part II does that The Godfather didn't do. It doesn't give you anything new, and stuff that was implicit in the original like the final shot of the door closing on Kay, is turned into spelled-out, tawdry melodrama in Part Two. Watching Michael go from a good man to rotten apple in the original is infinitely more riveting, dynamic and involving that watching a bad man go...badder. Snooze. Also, what I briefly thought was rocket fire turned out to be fireworks. I guess that means...happy new year!

I see Kwangchun Youn approves.

The fact of the matter is, nobody in the original Star Wars reacts very realistically to loss. That's part of what gives the movie its light touch. If Luke spent four minutes of screentime being depressed after the death of his aunt and uncle, and then again crushed after Ben's death... or if Leia spent those scenes of her we see in Imperial confinment nearly catatonic after having witness the loss of her entire planet... it could make for pretty good drama, but the film isn't going for that. In fact, at every turn the film makes sure to follow any character death with throwing us back into the action, to stop us lingering about it. That's why we think of The Empire Strikes Back feels so much darker, even though nobody of consequence dies in it: when Luke finds out, its allowed to linger.

Well, go to the doctor to get a prescription for 171 minutes of cinematic bliss!

Oops! There it is, now. Right under Revenge of the Sith.

Ask Mornay...

At the very least, if you wanna watch a movie, for goodness sake watch a man's movie!

The Empire Strikes Back 10/10 Star Wars 8/10 The Force Awakens 7/10 The Last Jedi 7/10 Rogue One 7/10 Revenge of the Sith 7/10 Return of the Jedi 7/10 The Phantom Menace 7/10 The Rise of Skywalker 3/10 Attack of the Clones 3/10

I'm citing it to reinforce a point that, to me, is clear enough from the film itself.

Oh, I agree! I'm just saying, fandom can sometimes go a wee overboard in its criticisms, making fiascos out of what most percieve as reasonably well-made, enjoyable movies.

That's...nowhere near enough booze! This! This is...moving towards the general direction of starting to be a nearly-adequate amount of booze:

What is this drink everyone in this thread been having? I want some of it, too!

And Blanchett in a role that was among the least-appealing she had ever looked in a film...

I personally believe the "Dragon Sickness" is like the love potion in Tristan: it may well have been cold tea. All the traits that are characteristic of Thorin under the scourage of the "sickness" are incipit in his personality from the outset: isolationism, neuroticism, obstinance, you name it, and we see them intensify the closer he gets to achieving his goal. Its his resolve to see the quest fullfilled - no matter what - that gradually sends him spiraling. As for the thing that actually makes him snap...when do we first see Thorin (well, after the credits) in The Battle of the Five Armies? We see him in the treasure hoard, and what is he muttering? "Gold beyond measure. Beyond sorrow and grief." Then he sees Fili and Kili and he's very visibly taken aback. Why? There's a deleted scene of Thorin - still in Laketown garb - that appeared in the trailer: "Everything I did, I did for them." In other words, he thinks that Fili and Kili - who we've learned not long prior are his heirs - had died in the attack on Laketown. So do the other Dwarves, judging by Ori's surprised "You're alive!" This grief is exacerbated by two factors: one, we know Dis made Kili swear he'd "come back to her" and we can assume she made Fili (whose visibly very protective of Kili) and Thorin likewise swear to bring him (and themselves) back safely; AND Thorin must surely think its his fault for leaving them in Laketown AND unleashing Smaug upon the town: "Revenge?" Smaug bellows: "I will show you revenge!" So its his grief that takes him over the edge, and he takes comfort in the one single heirloom he has left: his grandfather's gold. And, for all his flaws, Thorin is an exceptionally aspirational and moving character, I find. In the prologue alone, he shows moral fiber (he visibly disapproves of the stunt Thror pulls on Thranduil), cleverness (being the first to notice the approaching dragon), self-sacrifical bravery (saving Balin, Thror AND Thrain at great risk to himself), leadership (rallying the defenses from the front line and then leading the exodus). He goes on to show valiance in battle at Moria, he takes menial labours to provide for his people, and we're told he had "built a new life for us in the blue mountains." He's a profoundly noble character. There are very, very few characters in any of these films, about whose psyche you can write so much.

I believe that on that movie, some shots were composited together to look like split diopter shots...

If I wanted to, I could take each of my favourite movies and pick it full of holes: Apocalypse Now? Episodic - you could cut the Do-Lung bridge episode and not miss a thing. The Fellowship of the Ring - the fuck is up with the continuity in the prologue? So Isildur jumps into the water in armour (?!), but then the Orc arrows pierce it like butter, and then in the shots from the back there's no armour? WTF!? Don't even get me started on Gladiator! etc...etc..etc... I could not think of a more mirthless way to look at movies than the above. What matters in watching a movie are those moments that stick in your mind afterwards, the overall sweep of the thing. And to cite an example from a concurrent discussion we're making elsewhere - and lets not put too fine a point on this as to not derail the conversation - The Battle of the Five Armies, as a movie, is building up to Thorin's death. If I wept during that scene, than its a good movie. Because clearly enough of it had been working towards that scene and the desired effect and evidentally did its job. The bumps along the way, therefore, matter little. And, it also pays to have a reality check. Lets look at the movies in discussion: Dial of Destinty, and "TLJ, TROS and all three Hobbit movies." On Rotten Tomatoes they score 70%, 91% (!), 51%, 64%, 75% (!) and 59%. This is not to invalidate anyone's opinion of these films - I personally can't stand The Rise of Skywalker, and I don't think much of Dial of Destiny - but to show that we can get a little carried away in our critiques. Heck, many of the these movies made tons of money: some, like The Hobbit entries, repeatedly so, so enough people liked them at least on the level of the spectacle of it all, and that's something too. If anything, the most damning critique of Dial of Destiny is that people voted with their purses... There are plenty of TRULY bad movies, without even going to gutters of The Room. Even The Rise of Skywalker - by far my least favourite of those films listed above - is not one of those.

Its obviously a balance, but I think to reduce it to a level of calculus and boil it down to a question of consistenty is aggressively anti-poetic.