Chen G.
-
Posts
9,821 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Chen G.
-
-
41 minutes ago, John said:
I just keep seeing people giving The Last Jedi crap because they think running out of fuel has NEVER been a problem in Star Wars before, when the opposite is true.
I'm sure it was used as a plot device elsewhere in the series, as well. Although, to be fair, there's a difference between using it at one junction of the plot and using it as the premise on which one of the film's three subplots hinge.
A tad too sci-fi, for me, is all.
-
1 hour ago, Jerry said:
I'd say that the Imperial motif and the Jawa motif are underrated. They are vital to the score
The Imperial motif - absolutely. The Jawa one - not so much. Its really more of a self-contained musical setpiece than a recurring motif. Its used in one section of the film, only broken up by a brief section of imperial material. Sure, it does a very fine job describing not just the Jawas but Tatooine itself, but still.
I really like the Rebel Fanfare (which, indeed, the original liner notes describe as a "rebel spaceship fanfare"). If you want to talk about a concise motive that says "This is Star Wars" - that's the one.
-
5 minutes ago, karelm said:
Luke will use force projection on the entire fleet. Consumed with hatred, the First Order will chase the phantom fleet until they are out of fuel.
No, thank you. No more of this fuel nonesense. Had enough of that in The Last Jedi.
-
Scripts are rarely all that boring. Their realization often is.
-
-
3 hours ago, John said:
Couldn't disagree more. It's a fantastic little compilation.
It is.
One thing that makes it unique is that it opens with all the concert arrangements upfront; which makes perfect sense if you think about it as the first score in the narrative order of the whole work.
-
I really think that this question is kind of unfair when it comes to films in large franchises, because those individual films will endure by virtue of being part of that franchise, even if they're not that good.
-
Mine is exactly the same case: I can't recall specifics, but I don't remember being bothered by that part of the film.
As for elements that aren't driving the story forward: that depends. If its an entire sequence than I can understand complaints; but yeah, sometimes filmmakers just throw in a small vignette of-sorts into a slow section of the film to keep it interesting.
Sometimes, those kinds of vignettes serve a section of the film in the same way that a "James Bond opening" serves a film as a whole. i.e. after a slower section of the film, the filmmakers throw-in a a bit of action as a sign of "okay, now we're getting to the point!"
All are valid narrative devices.
Besides, I find the idea that a single bad beat or setpiece can undo an entire film utterly abusrd. For me to write a film off, it has to have something wrong with it throughout, and no, "not like the book" doesn't count.
-
But Nick, do you not understand? "dat iz not haw it waz in da buk!"
-
And the toughest motha throws the even-thougher motha down a shaft....
-
3 hours ago, Cherry Pie That'll Kill Ya said:
In other words, you grew out of it?
I know I did. I can watch some of my favorites out of the series (Prisoner of Azkaban and Order of the Phoenix, mostly) but I don't feel much of a need to revisit the others.
-
I’ve yet to see a Star Wars film where the bad guys were defeated by any means other than violence. It’s in the friggin name: Star WARS.
-
11 minutes ago, crocodile said:
He just realised that using violence against the Sith won't get him anywhere.
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.
-
20 minutes ago, Holko said:
Horcrux memories, Voldy flying into ashes, burning the Burrow...
And how do these, very specific plot elements undercut the narrative of any of the books, much less the entire series?
6 minutes ago, Arpy said:The Columbus films are great at laying a good solid foundation on which the framework of the series was built.
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.
-
36 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:
“Travesty”? Don’t you think you’re overstating your case just a bit? They are, in fact, faithful adaptions. That’s indisputable. Whether you think that’s good or bad is another question.
Read what Spielberg planned to do with Harry Potter and maybe you’ll appreciate what Columbus did a bit more.
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.
-
3 hours ago, Arpy said:
I think the films, all of them, deserve to be watched as companion pieces to the books.
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.
-
25 minutes ago, Holko said:
barely has anything to do with the book.
An overrated criterion for adapted screenplays right there.
-
Two wrongs don’t make a right, y’know...
Worst Scene in The Hobbit?
in Tolkien Central
Posted
I don't think the design's too bad: I like that he has all this metal attached to his body. Looks like a frankenstein-type monster. He's got bear claws for epaulets - referring to what Beorn says about Azog (and, evidentally, Bolg as well) torturing skin-changers.
Its just that sometimes the CG on him is shoddy. Other times it looks fine. He's a minor character, anyway.