Chen G.

Bollocks! Are we to believe that The First Order is to be won by hugs?

"I am Steve Rogers." Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be writing on a chalkboard "I will not reply with movie quotes ever again" one hundred times.

It is. I'm in two minds about its thematic significance, however. On the one hand, its use seems quite intentional (especially because it also appears in the original Sail Barge composition) and its even varied between statements. On the other hand, the association amounts to little more than a generic, "triumphant" motif. That makes it extra baffling because both Luke's two themes, the Rebel Fanfare and Throne Room theme all carry that association, as well, and all feature in Return of the Jedi, so why have another leitmotif (if were are to assume it is one) along those lines? I don't think Williams even spoke about it, and Matessino's liner notes to the special edition make no note of it whatsoever. Lehman only classifies it as an incidental, "Lydian" fanfare. Adams, however, labels it as the "Victory Fanfare" motif. I dunno.

And how do these, very specific plot elements undercut the narrative of any of the books, much less the entire series? Which is exactly why I'm cutting the first film a lot of slack - the second film, not so much.

Care to elaborate?

I think, artistically, the popularity of the source material is of no consequence. As long as you capture the plot, at its most rudimentary form, as well as the basic themes of the work - you're good to go. Everything in the book (or not in it) that surrounds that core, is there for you to mess with, to the end of making the most filmic version possible. Even if you do decide to mess with the core of the film, you can still make a good film; it just won't be an adaptation so much as a re-interpertation. But that doesn't mean anything as to the quality of the film: Most of Kubrick's films fall into the "re-interpertation" category, and yet they're excellent.

Regardless, those specific examples (on which I have to agree with Nick) don't make Spielberg bad at adaptation. Most of his films are adapted works; and some of his best works deviate significantly to the source material (often even on the level of the core plot and themes) and yet still work as films, which is the most important aspect of an adapted film.

Yeah, its fair to say my choice of words was too harsh. But to my mind a "faithful" adaptation is one which captures, as @Arpy put it, "the core plot and themes" in the most cinematic way: in other words, the "faithfulness" of the adaptation cannot be separated from the cinematic verve (or lack thereof) of the finished product. The Columbus entries don't do that well. Its actually not Christopher Columbus fault, for the most part. Its the screenwriter, Steve Kloves. In effect he didn't write a screenplay, he presented an abridged form of the book. That can work in a very specific subset of literature which was written to read like a screenplay. As the entries progressed, Kloves clearly became bolder, and the finished products (for the most part) benefited enormously from that. And while I agree that it was a good commercial decision, artistically its a mixed bag, for me. On the one hand, I can understand Columbus and Kloves being very keen to include every setpiece from the book in the script and edit, since not all of the books have been published and they didn't know what would be important to later entries and what wouldn't. On the other hand, I think it damaged the films going forward because it facilitated an anticipation for later films to follow a similar route regarding adaptation; and while I do think those later entries are better films, there are places where I think they, too, could have been more audacious in the treatment of the source material. Although, like I said, I'm willing to cut the first of the two Columbus entries much more slack by virtue of the fact that its the establishing film of the series, so its understandable for it to be fairly slow. Having said that, I do always appreciate it when the establishing film transcends its role and manages to not only establish the characters, world and central conflict, but also to be enrapturing and energetic.

Indeed; and the best in which it stands a chance to encourage a person to seek out the work its based on, is if the film changes the work however it needs, for the sake of being the best film that it can be. That's my issue with the Columbus entries. To call them "faithful adaptations" would be a travesty. They are merely an abridged form of the book which just happened to have been acted and photographed.

No. That's the other thing about adaptations: they need to work, first and foremost, for those who have not and never will read, watch or study the source material.

An overrated criterion for adapted screenplays right there.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, y’know...

I don’t think the same will happen to The Last Jedi. Namely, because Empire Strikes Back is that good, whereas The Last Jedi - meh. Honestly, the “The Last Jedi is great and in time all will know as much” argument is just as infantile as the “The Last Jedi ruined my childhood” one is. Putting aside the fan criticisms, it’s overwrought, often boring, and inappropriately comedic. Oh, and... That.

Well, JWFan attracts people of a certain taste in cinema. The kind of cosy, lighthearted fare, which accounts for some of the films that merited Williams’ most iconic scores. Harry Potter is an unusual case where the series started very much in that mould and developed into something...well, more mature. So naturally it wouldn’t sit well with those who grew attached to the feel of the early entries. And it doesn’t get much more, ummm, mature, than The Half-Blood Prince, does it now?

I don’t recall each individual film that well to brandish a rigorous list. I also believe, like @Disco Stu that the merit of such lists only goes so far. I should preface that I’ve only read the first few books, having given up on them early. As such, I’m coming at this from a purely cinematic viewpoint. I would say I find Prisoner of Azkaban the best. It pulls the trick ending thing ,which so many movies use to a numbing effect, brilliantly; it’s wonderfully stylized and inventive with ample use of practical long takes. Other films I like are The Order of the Phoenix: it’s grown on me in retrospect. It inspects Harry’s anxiety and his connection to Voldemort very well. I’m also partial to The Half Blood Prince And the first Deathly Hallows. I couldn’t care less for the Columbus entries. They’re bland and lethargic. A lot has been said for the child actors being over-the-top, to which I answer that the performance is as dependant on the director as it is the cast. And indeed, in spite of the talented adult cast, they aren’t giving us anything of note, either. I give a big pass for the first of the two, because I’m always lenient with the establishing film of a series. It’s at least charming in its own way, to no small extent due to John’s score. I can’t extent the same to Chamber of Secrets, unfortunately. To my mind, it’s a BAD movie. Goblet of Fire is a significant improvement, but some of the directorial choices don’t work for me.

No. But it does have a palpable sense of danger, which is paramount for the stakes.

Yeah, if one was so inclined to look at Harry Potter as a single cohesive story (to me, it’s not quite there, but whatever) than Goblet of Fire would be the end of Act I. However, I’m not the biggest fan of the film. It’s one of the better screenplays, streamlining the written work quite wonderfully, but the way it’s directed leaves something to be desired: I like Gambon’s Dumbeldore but the way his role is directed has him far too intense throughout this film; the maze at the end is just decidedly not intimidating, the grading is off, etc... Prisoner of Azkaban is brilliant. Hardly the best thing since sliced bread or anything but it’s delightful.

True, but at least Luke and Leia are safe. In that very specific regard, Empire’s cliffhanger is quite tame. It’s not like it cuts at the reveal or when Luke jumps to his presumed death.

What was that thing they used to say in officer school? "Always strive for excellence..." Well, that's @Chen G. in a nutshell for you! That and humble, that is. 😉

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

Meh. There are similarities, sure, but they're mostly superficial, and are largely the result of the starting point to this film, as laid down by Abrams. a lack of originality isn't the issue here.

It is and it isn't. While the film clearly doesn't approve of Ren's communist-like ideology of killing the past, it does seek to go against the "Star Wars formula" at just about every single turn, to the point that it becomes infuriating to ardent fans, or just tiresome for the average viewer. Johnson even subverted the "I have a bad feeling about this" line by not using it, and later cheekily said that BB-8 beeped it during the opening sequence. *sigh...*

That.

That. That, and "esque". Y'know the ones: "Walton-esque", etc...

That's the issue: I never cared for any of those questions.