Jump to content

Chen G.

Members
  • Posts

    7,444
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Chen G.

  1. Revisions are actually more common in film than one might imagine. Even in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, many of the choices made for the Extended cuts were informed by the editing process on the next film moving along, and the filmmakers adding stuff into the existing film to sit better with the next one. True, it's all within less than a year's time, not 15. But still. As long as you do it tastefully and without outright replacing the original cut, I don't mind.
  2. And, most importantly, Steven Spielberg didn't supplant the original cut with his updated cut. As long as it's done in that fashion, I don't mind minute tweaks to Lord of the Rings.
  3. The Balrog and Gandalf falling? In terms of linearity, I see where you'd get that from. But the structure of those films isn't entirely linear, and not for naught. The idea being that, since The Two Towers has the least spread-out action, it needed a James Bond opening, even at the price of none-linearity.
  4. If it's an optional version of the film, why would you care? Its like the removal of "what's this? A Ring!" in the YouTube edit above. It's part of the editing process: sometimes good stuff has got to go, too.
  5. Come on.... One must always bear in mind that Lucas supplanting the original release with his Special Edition is the exception, not the rule. Other directors offered updated versions and director cuts, but still kept the original cut around. Hell, its the same thing with the theatrical/extended versions of Jackson's Middle Earth features and his King Kong. I wouldn't mind a version with Martin Freeman, and maybe with "you haven't aged a day" dailed out and maybe a couple of other small changes, but yeah, as they are they're not deal-breakers in terms of continuity. The triumph here is that the two trilogies mesh well without any real changes required to the existing material. Whereas in Lucas' work, the continuity is so cluncky that he needed to completely revise the existing films, and it still doesn't work!
  6. I'm not a huge fan of it. The melody and color (pipe organ) are to repetitive, to the point that the score feels like an idea-fixe score rather than a leitmotivic one. And the presentation in the film is way too overwrought. And seeing how it's attached to one of my least favorite Christopher Nolan films, my appreciation of the score cannot go unaffected.
  7. While it is a longer film, I don't suppose Rian Johnson is going to devote too much of his all too precious screentime to fixing his former's plotholes and question marks, where he can instead focus on moving the story along.
  8. Oh, if that's what you're looking out for in terms of "tying back to the prequels" than yes, that isn't really a thing because the prequel narrative is so far removed (its what, sixty years apart?) from that of this new trilogy. I was talking more about little callbacks. No need to think: Its been told explicitly by both Rian Johnson and - I think - by Kathleen Kennedy, that there is no master plan there. Which makes populist critics defending The Force Awakens on the grounds of "wait to see what happens in the sequels" pointless. That's true of most hollywood film series. Story outlines, outside of the very broadest of strokes, don't really exist. The only real way to create a thought-out film series is to write and shot it all simultaneously, a-la Lord of the Rings, which clearly isn't the case here.
  9. Surely you get my point: Rogue One is set between the prequels and the original Star Wars, and as such cannot forgo the prequels in the way that episodes 7-9 can, do and would. Simple. It has nothing to do with the producers or indeed the director liking or disliking the prequels. Its a marketing issue.
  10. The closest that I recall to a prequel reference in The Force Awakens is the tongue-in-cheek "maybe supreme leader Snoke should consider using a clone army." But some may have slipped under my radar because I'm only a casual fan of Star Wars, at best. Rogue One is different because its essentially episode 3.9 so of course those references will be in there. The main episodes have a different aesthetic.
  11. Oh, I didn't realize a 2,500-word essay on each Indy film was in due... I like Indiana Jones (well, two of them) a lot. I just don't find it as outstanding as the aforementioned. Its just escapist, episodic, two-hour adventures with good characters and intriguing plots. The one that gets closest to anything in the way of drama is The Last Crusade with the father-son relationship. The 80s audience certainly had more of a taste to pure escapism in genre films, yes. They somewhat "grew-out' of that by the early 2000s, and somewhat regressed in this decade with all the shmarveling.
  12. Especially in a film franchise. Its not like this is an adaptation of a book where some plot points were cut out of the film, but can be found on the book. Here, the books are afterthoughts to the films.
  13. There's a lot of "what girl?" and "whose the girl?" immediately preceding a cut. I think that plays into the intrigue behind her lineage very much.
  14. I mean his appearance. He looks like Anakin does in Revenge of the Sith. She knows its marketing poison, in terms of production value.
  15. Kathleen Kennedy wouldn't let that stand. The whole aesthetic of the recent forays into the Star Wars universe are built off of evoking the first three Star Wars films (the "original" trilogy). Just about the only thing The Force Awakens took from the prequels were Kylo Ren's appearance, and that's from Revenge of the Sith which they can get a pass from fans for recycling.
  16. They're still a work in progress, but eventually - sure.
  17. I think to look at films as stepping stones of the industry eschews the discussion of the films' individual merits and demerits, which is what film criticism is all about. I'm also not sure what this "influence", that Indiana Jones supposedly had on the industry, is supposed to be, besides it being part of the wave of blockbusters that had swept Hollywood at the time, and furthering the career of Steven Spielberg.
  18. That's true. Its not a straightforward action film and certainly not an action-drama. Its an action-comedy. But, for what it is, its so much ^$%#ing fun! I like Indiana Jones for what it is: quick action-adventure movies. Beyond that, there's not much to them, dramatically speaking. I have a strong dislike for the comedy in Temple of Doom. There's even something about a lot of the deliveries in Raiders of the Lost Ark that rubs me the wrong way.
  19. Yeah, Williams' approach this time around (contrary to his approach to the later two prequels) is to write thematic material for the characters themselves, rather than for events and places (e.g. the duel theme, mustafar motif, conspiracy motif, kamino fanfare) and this choice tends to carry over to the track title choices, as well.
  20. Indeed. That's the problem when a trilogy is a string of connected but largely standalone films, as this Star Wars trilogy (and indeed most trilogies, including previous Star Wars entries) is. Watching them in a row after-the-fact its never going to feel like a truly organic transition between films.
  21. My gripe is that it feels like a pastiche of Horner's own Braveheart, which I know James Cameron very much enjoyed. It has the same celtic vibe (even though the story doesn't suggest it), the same lineup (uileann pipes, tin whistle, boy choir) and even a very similar-sounding melody.
  22. This kind of nostalgic outlook is not without bias, though. I also grew up on all of those films, but looking back at them as objectivelly as I can, I don't think that the youth of today has it any worst. Lord of the Rings and Empire Strikes Back are the only truly outstanding films in that bunch, and those kinds of movies are rare in any decade. The others have their fair share of flaws just like any contemporary "big" film. Its actually the more flawed and jouvenile films of the bunch that are more nostalgic, because audiences are exposed to them at a more tender, impressionable age.
  23. I have edits of an overarching, six-score overture and of some of the Shire material arranged into a symphonic form. I also do edits using various alternate takes of material to give an impression of multiple choirs and brass choirs a-la Havergal's The Gothic. If anything needs that kind of grandeur in the orchestration, its Shore's Lord of the Rings.
  24. If anything, he actually got better at writing these leitmotivic pieces. The Hobbit scores are fairly more dense than The Lord of the Rings, except maybe Return of the King.
  25. He's really just describing a moment in the music rather than the score for the sequence as a whole. It might just be that it was some rendition of the Rebel fanfare (although it's closely associated with the Falcon in The Force Awakens, it has been known to be attached in random to various triumphant moments) that evokes that "retro" feeling for the OP without him realizing it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.