Chen G.

Reminds me of passover. But I couldn't in good faith call it cinema: its just a very elaborate stageplay that just happened to have occured in front of a camera and microphones. Never have I begged a film for a close-up! Its all just wideshots, and it ultimately betrays the scope that the film is going for. And that intro has to be the weirdest choice in cinema history. Enigmatic, I would say. And yes, I have that "issue" with Kubrick, as well; although outside of 2001 I don't mind it terribly. Horror is considered the second most subjective genre. But its generally accepted that The Shining isn't scary. What it has got in spades is atmosphere.

I knew it! Were there any other major variations in the orchestra to speak of, for either The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit?

Good point.

The four flutes are mentioned a couple of times in the Two Towers' Anotated score -- "Four alto flutes ascend in their clement, airy tones, dreamily hailing the arrival of a soprano voice. Sheila Chandra performs 'The Grace of the Valar'" -- as is the sixth horn, in the Return of the King one: "Six French horns bellow the History/Evil of the Ring hybrid" . A sixth horn player is also credited in the Symphony recording. Later live performances would use seven, too. Eight trumpets are from Dermot Crehan's memory: "Dermot’s fondest recollection of performing on this Hardanger was when Howard asked him to join an eight strong trumpet session to play the ‘Rohan’ theme. This fiddle was easily audible amongst the magnificent sound of the trumpet section of the London Philharmonic orchestra" - makes sense given how the piece sounds, too. I wouldn't be surprised if the other brass parts were increased similarly, and were recorded apart from the trumpets and hardanger. I'll have to dig a bit more to recall the second tuba being used in Moria, but from memory it was Doug Adams who confirmed it. EDIT: found it: "He was speaking generally [with regards to the layout of the orchestra - implying more variations elsewhere...]yes there are two tubas here. Shore expanded his low brass forces for the Moria music." Never let it be said that I'm not thorough!

Shore actually used multiple variations upon his basic lineup: there's definitely a second tuba in the Moria bits of The Fellowship of the Ring; There's a sixth horn in the Mount Doom stuff (and in the Symphony recording); two sets of timpani in multiple sections of the scores; two taikos for Helm's deep; eight trumpets for the charge of the Rohirrim; four flutes (instead of three) for some of the Rivendell material; The NZSO also rolls around with four clarinets, as opposed to the LPO's three, and also used a bass oboe (or heckelphone - the details aren't clear) for The Desolation of Smaug, which would add up to four oboes, as well; the size of the choirs, too, changed significantly between different pieces, I wouldn't be surprised to find subtle variations in the number of strings, etcetra. The basic NZSO lineup for these seems to have been four trombones consistenty. The LPO's three trombones. I count at least three here, as well:

Was it two tenor trombones and one bass for the LPO, then? I know the NZSO's low brass section is larger by one piece. Plus, Shore occasionally augmented them with added horns or a second tuba. Its certainly a more pronounced section of the orchestra, in all the parts of the sextet that were scored in New Zealand.

They're called a bass trombone.... Outside of specific pieces that call for added parts, The London Philarmonic recorded these films with three tenor trombones. The New Zealand Symphony has a forth, bass trombone. So naturally you're going to get a different sound. Shore always writes for the ensemble, and its obvious with the later two entries that he wrote to complement the NZSO's excellent low brass. The same is true of the Moria bits of The Fellowship of the Ring. I like it. There's a bit in Inside Information that almost sounds like its imitating Smaug's growls.

Outside of The Battle of the Five Armies soundtrack, I never had issues with the mix, or heard anyone complain of it, for that matter. I'm calling out the halo effect on this one.

There's obviously some repeated material between the three, but each features alternate sections of the others: you have to use all three if you want to create a thorough edit; and I'd throw the fan-credits, The Symphony and any other alternate you can get your hands on into the mix. The Two Towers OST features a recurring theme for Shadowfax that in the CR only appears once, during the charge at Helm's Deep. It has the gloomy choral music for Emyn Muil. During the Warg attack, it has a choral part that's in part dialed out of the CR in favor of highlighting a hardanger solo, etcetra. The Rarities have a brilliant piece for the Rohirrim attack on the Orc camp where Merry and Pippin are held. The fan-credits, too, feature a nice version of Evenstar (without the soloist) that functions like a nice formal theme presentation. The Return of the King OST is most prominent for the major-key lighting of the beacons (which is just extraordinary) and more upbeat whistle performances for when Frodo and Sam are on the slopes of Mount Doom, and the deluxe edition has another end-credits song: Use Well the Days. The rarities has an extended choral section of the finale at Mount Doom which is another must. Shore also arranged some of the Shire material from Return of the King for James Galway to perform with chamber orchestras. It sees Galway perform Dermot Crehan's fiddle solo on his flute, as well as playing the tin whistle as the orchestra performs the Hobbiton theme and the swell of the Shire theme at Sam's wedding, which is nice.

Williams, especially vintage Williams, would write these long, sing-song pieces as leitmotives, so I'm always cautious when I'm looking at their individual sections. Whenever this concept of putting apart a tune and examining its individual parts as separate leitmotives comes up, I'm looking for three things: Intentionality: the best would be to have John Williams state this outright, otherwise it must be deduced from the music. Repitition: in this case, of each element as an entirely standalone motif: it needs to appear at least two times completely by itself. Ideally, you'd have the different sections of the tune emerge at different points along the score and develop independently of each other - that's how you know they're separate. Function: it needs to serve a different thematic function with regards to what its associated with on-screen. If both parts of the tune evoke (and are associated with) the same narrative element, with little to no distinction, than you can't really assign it as a separate leitmotif.

No. Its a point we've discussed before. Lucas wasn't intentionally providing commentary on the Jedi's hubris and stiffness. That's just Rian Johnson being apologetic and trying to retcon the whole thing - quite unsuccesfuly, I should add. If that was Lucas intention, he wouldn't have the Jedi's strict rules (for instance, their objection to matrimony) be reinforced by the outcomes of Revenge of the Sith. His film proves that the Jedi were right. Lucas must've thought that it was so cool, stoic and zen-like to have Yoda ramble on about how just about everything that makes us human is "a path to the darkside". But it wasn't. It was inane. Not to mention, he needed things to fall into place like that for the plot of his film to work.

That depends. If you ask Rian Johnson its because "the legacy of the Jedi is failure.[...]at the height of their power they allowed Darth Sidius to rise" yada yada. If you ask any filmgoer that watched the prequel trilogy, they'll tell you "because the film needed them to."

Its a variation of the Gondor theme, used only for the Last Alliance in an early version of the score, where the end of the theme is different to both the ascending and the descending variants. Its essentially the genesis of both. I've seen a draft of The Music of The Lord of the Rings where Doug contemplated putting it in the theme list at the top of the book as an "unused theme" where he calls it the "second-age Gondor theme". I like to think of it as the Numenore theme. It certainly works with regards to the Tolkien canon, and within the scope of Shore's score, he does apply the Gondor in decline theme to Arnor once, where Aragorn mentions its downfall. If down the line someone wants to get really clever, they'd put the Rivendell arpeggios behind this melody line and call it Earendil's theme. 😉

'Tis bollocks. As for similar locations in IX: there's no knowing - from similarity in locations alone - that the film's content and themes will be deriviative. The Last Jedi had a ton of superficial similarities to Empire Strikes Back: Walkers, a space pursuit, a cave, etcetra - I'd hardly blame it for being deriviative, though. Because they're just that - superficial. In general, I'd hazard against looking too much into setting, specifically. Since the plot of each Star Wars film happens across several planets, not any one of them can be explored terribly well, and to keep them easily distinguishable you need to give every planet a unique look. Now, the basic types of environment aren't too numerous: you basically have forest, desert, glacial and urban (so, Endor, Tatooine, Hoth and Curoscant), so some repitition is going to happen, purely through the generic nature of the environment. That doesn't mean that its deriviative. You would be right to expect something that "feels" more like The Force Awakens, both because JJ's behind both films, and because its become a calling-card for trilogies to have their first and third installments function like two "bookends" that have a strong semblence of each other: Return of the Jedi, The Dark Knight Rises, The Last Crusade, etcetra.

I wouldn't say that. Watching it, I enjoyed it: it was funny, it was well-made, it was very well structured. I just wished it would've been a laugh-out-loud-till-it-hurts type of film, given its reputation. But that's the thing with comedies - no matter how masterfuly the joke is set-up or delivered - if you don't find it funny, you won't find it funny. Again, even viewing the same film on an off-day, you sometimes won't laugh as much as you did on another day. Its by far the most subjective genre.

I'm actualy 6 foot 2. 😉

It is both. But the "nature" component tends to be underplayed, where it actually seems to be quite dominant. To seek out 50/50 representation is to ignore it completely, and its just too stiff a concept to actually implement. If you try and make the entire workforce in the world be split exactly according to the general demographic - you'd never get any work done - you'll be too busy sorting people out by gender and race. At the end of the day, 50/50-representation is a social doctrine - whether you agree with it or not - and it is one that Lucasfilm are gradually implementing into their films, in front of and behind the camera. I don't mind it too much. I'm certainly not averse to the idea of a female protagonist (namely because the protagonist of a film tends to be exceptional rather than average).

Change isn't always good... This isn't some social construct that you're dismantelling with the idea of "equality of outcome" - you're trying to go against something that is, appearantly, hard-wired into our species. It isn't. Just how much of it's genetic and how much of it is socially constructed is unclear, but what is clear is that you're downplaying the part of the hereditery component here.

what problem?! As they do where I live, as well.

I'm requiring it to adhere to human nature, yes. Otherwise, how can we engage with it? On average, it seems that women are less likely to want to seek out such a profession, because of its inherent masculinity. Anything else is social indoctrination of some sort.

Its not like its the end of the world, but its just too strict a criteria to stick to, and it might result in some perfectly-applicable people of either gender being passed-on for no reason other than for the employer wanting an equal outcome. And like I said: it isn't something to strive to. The western ideal is one of equal opportunity. Some jobs are dominated by Men (physical professions, for instance) others - by women (norses, teachers). Both are perfectly equitable with regards to opportunity. More specifically with casts, it can stretch credulity in a film. Like I said, the action-adventure genre is inherently masculine. If such a film was halfway populated with women, it'd seem ridiculous. Look at the resistance: its essentially a military organisation. Are you telling me that the same precent of the female demographic wants to enlist as is with the male demographic? No. On average, women are less interested in those professions. And yet... and

I seem to recall that men, on average, score much higher on neuroticism. But I could be mistaken. At any rate, the idea that both sexes are perfectly similar is not wholly based in fact. So it makes sense for some genres (action-adventure) to be dominated by males, while others (romance) to be dominated by females. Making the cast or the staff of the production company split at 50/50 is not an ideal of western society.

Does that come in a more vitriolic size? Yes, the idea that IX will bomb is absolutely idiotic. The criticisms against Johnson and Kennedy is in part idiotic, but in part isn't. As it stands, @Mattris has made several good points (if excruciatingly long-winded and often overblown) against The Last Jedi, and the sequel trilogy as a whole (and - by proxy - against the people at its helm) over the course of this thread.

Plus, this is a sequel; not a spinoff or prequel. Its how the story "ends" (kinda). People will want to see that, even if they don't admit to wanting to.

🤣 Episode IX is going to be a box office success. I guarentee that. Whether its going to be a terribly good movie? I'm not too optimistic, actually. Last entries in a trilogy don't have the best of track records. That is correct. That's a terrible explanation! Not that Rian Johnson's any better, he just let Snoke explain that Rey was born to be as strong as Kylo as part of the natural balance. They way Rey is infinitely capable in The Force Awakens was such that the filmmakers wrote themselves - and any other filmmaker approaching the character - into a corner. The only believable way to explain it was to connect her to an established, powerful lineage from the earlier films - which would have been cheesy and anticlimactic as hell. I never expected Johnson to go there, and it was better to just eschew an explanation alltogether, really. I will say, I don't mind her uber-competence as much as you do. I find the characters' internal state much more significant than their capabilities. Rey, more in The Force Awakens but in this one, still - is filled with self-deprecation and doubts. 'Tis bollocks. There's no evidence to back this rumor up. The only reason this narrative exists is that Johnson's and JJ's films are so diametrically opposed: one is a retread of an existing film, the other - goes against that film (at least, superficially) at every chance it gets. That doesn't mean that the filmmakers themselves are diametrically opposed in their opinions. You do of course know that JJ is an executive producer on this entire trilogy, right? He will have seen Johnson's film take shape, and approved of it. JJ just had to make a "safe", formulaic film: The Force Awakens just had too much riding on its back to take too many chances. I doubt he really wanted to make a deriviative film, and I don't expect him to make one with IX, either. Wait, you expected Luke's desperation not to be presistent throughout a large portion of this film? You expected him to gather his wits within twenty or thirty minutes and go join the good guys?! That's as stupid as anything that's actually in The Last Jedi, I'm afraid. As for his astral projection: well, it was more conducive to what he was trying to do than actually showing up. I will admit that his death may feel somewhat unearned. If he had died in IX I think it would have felt more naturally earned. I'll wait till after IX to pass judgment, but yeah, the entire concept's flawed. Return of the Jedi closed the book on Star Wars. It didn't do a terrific job of it, but it did it, nonetheless. So there's really no reason for more episodes other than that "George always intended to make nine films" bollocks and "give us money!" Still, we'll see if IX can somehow manage to tie everything together. Just to speak to this point: while I dissaprove of Kathleen Kennedy's behind-the-scenes gender-equity policy (i.e. the idea that the work-place should be split 50/50 gender-wise) I don't know quite how much that spills into the actual film. Yeah, the ratio in the onscreen cast is getting closer to 50/50 (which I suppose in the action/adventure genre would be disconcerting) but expressions of outright toxic feminism are few and far in between, and are never all that blatant, anyway. The closest thing to it is actually in The Force Awakens when Rey consistently has an issue with Finn who, out of nothing but good intentions, grabs her by the hand. There's nothing of this sort in The Last Jedi. All you're pointing to are incidental things that occur as part of the plot - not an actual talking point in the movie.