Chen G.

Combating it? Yeah, right... One does not combat hostility by snarkily implying disingenuousness on the part of others, especially when said "others" have never done the same (this post being the exception to the rule).

And the Avengers (the original and the recent film), and Indiana Jones (especially 3 and the alledged forth one), and Harry Potter - not that its anyone buisness, but still - more than enough films to discuss inteligently, as opposed to throwing smarmy comments at members of the board. Besides being blockbusters, most of these films are part of a serialized franchise. I have a fascination with the use of the multi-film form in storytelling, so naturally I will participate in discussions of movies in big franchises. All of this however is irrelevant to the discussion, and we would be better off referring to one's arguments rather than one's filmgoing or participation-in-discussions habits. I don't recall ever examining the habits of another member of the board. Pity some others can't extend the favor.

Why shut down the argument entirely where one can course-correct it? Look at this thread as a case study: we started with SJW nonesense, and in these last few pages we managed to produce what I believe is a fruitful discussion on the merits and demerits of The Last Jedi. What reason have we to stop unless the discussion had run its course? Just because of some memebers' fondnest for low-key ad hominem arguments? If one cannot endure those occasional blurbs, one best not go online in the first place. That doesn't mean that one has to mince words in replying to such inappropriate arguments.

I think in this case, it helps explain why a lot of people felt The Last Jedi was awkwardly-paced. And honestly, if you insist on referring to one's persona ("humble self", "dressed up as words of wisdom") and moviegoing habits rather than one's arguments, than this discussion is going to go nowhere.

I would agree, but there's a difference between temp-track emulation and an intentional homage.

It isn't overanalysis. Narrative structure is the most basic element of assesing a film of any kind. Overanalysis would be fussing over each nuance of the textbook three-act structure (y'know, "inciting incident", "turning point" 1/2, etc...) which to me always seems like an redundant and overly-dogmatic form of critique. But the main acts? the planting/payoff mechanisms between them? The thrust? Those really aren't that complicated or minute.

From an interview with Williams, in 2002: You could say, given how much time had passed, that he was misremembering, but still. ___________ 1 https://www.filmscoremonthly.com/backissues/viewissue.cfm?issueID=74

I'm a very casual filmgoer: I don't see a lot of films every year and the ones I do see are the tentpole blockbusters. I think there's a reason why its those particular types of movies that have become so succesful and prevalent.

Yeah, but that's also true of passages of the original Star Wars, and yet Williams had denied that it was based on that; although its worth noting it was in 2002, so 25 years removed from that score.

But it all ties back to the main story: Sauron is made responsible for the Orc armies that initiate the Battle of the Five Armies. Legolas returns Orcrist to Thorin while he's still alive, and also serves as a plot device to keep Thranduil in the loop of the story. Tauriel is instrumental in the staging of Kili's death (Urgh...). And I don't think I need to elaborate on Thranduil and Bard's significance to the story. There are certainly issues with how each storyline is plotted, how it concludes and what part of the story it takes, but I find that it works more than not. Really, the only time where these subplots overwhelm the film are the first half of The Battle of the Five Armies, but that's warranted because our main story is absent: Erebor is taken, Smaug is slain, but Thorin is overcome by dragon sickness, and the company feels kind of lost. In other words, its complementary of our main character's state of mind. One of the editing choices I like with both later films is that instead of piling the subplots one ontop of the other come the climax (as even great, but less assured filmmakers like Nolan are prone to do), here the subplots are peeled away one by one, so that by the actual climax you're left with just the main story.

Its not. Analyzing the structure is done after the fact. I mentioned this earlier, but "it was long" was literally the first thing I said coming out of The Last Jedi. Also, a film doesn't necessarily have to comply to this structure to be effective: For instance, one of my favorite movies, Braveheart, doesn't really have a three-act structure. Its true of other (good) films as well: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, for instance. So, no, mine is not a "checking boxes" approach.

That's it? A recurring motif needs to recur in two discrete cues. Twice in one piece of music doesn't really count, now does it?

Ten minutes can be more than enough to ruin the pace of the film, particularly in the second act. A long first act isn't going to make a film feel slow, because even casual filmgoers with no formal knowledge of narrative structure, will intuitivelly know that this is the "build up" and that its going to culminate in something more interesting. I mean, the original Star Wars has a 45-minute first act, Braveheart takes over an hour, etc. But in the second act, you expect a film to start soaring and if it stalls soon thereafter - people will start complaining.

Showing-off the film's world, for the sake of showing it off, is the quickest way to making an unfocused narrative. In some part, that's what hindered Lucas in his prequels: excessively exploring the politics of the Republic and the Jedi Council, and earlier drafts of the script (and even the first cut of film) to the original Star Wars exhibited this. There's a smidgin' of it in Empire Strikes Back, where Han mentions some past adventure (never to be seen) as he talks to Leia, but that's so small its utterly inconsequetial. For the record, I don't think Johnson's aim was to "show off" Canto Bight. He just got a bit lost in there. It was also clearly intended to be much longer, originally. To me, it ends up not working on any level whatsoever.

The problem is that the film isn't a two (and a half, unfortunately) hour excuse to exhibit this world. Its there to tell a story, with this world as a mere stage. Otherwise, just make a spinoff mockumentary about Canto Bight instead.

Its not that the themes are bad themes, its that they're not the themes of the movie as a whole, so they make the setpiece feel like it lacks focus.

Oh, I don't think these films are anywhere near perfect. But I think you're hanging into what this two-film version might have been more than is warranted. Even when Del Toro was on-board, the Dol Guldur subplot was going to be there, I believe Tauriel was going to be there, etc... And if you think Del Toro, who's famous for very dark genre films would have made a version more faithful to the tone of The Hobbit - I think you're deluding yourself. Once The Lord of the Rings happened, you could never make a version of The Hobbit that wasn't informed by that trilogy. When I talk about the appendices being the basis of the adaptation, I'm not talking about adding storylines (Dol Guldur, the Battle of Moria, etc) or setpieces, but changing the thrust of the narrative from Bilbo to Thorin and Company. Once you do that, you've got a story that's very much in the style of The Lord of the Rings - its tragic and its grand - and as such lends itself to the same style of storytelling: large-scale setpieces, multiple storylines, three movies, etc.. You both mentioned the prologue and the climax of An Unexpected Journey unfavorably: But, to me, the prologue was crucial on first viewing because it was that setpiece which informed me that this is Thorin's story, and once that was established I was sold on the film and the concept of a trilogy; plus its a great "James Bond" opening (in the tradition of The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers), which is essential given the slow pace of the picture. Connected to that, the climax was essentially the filmmakers getting Bilbo's arc out of the way so that they can tell the story of the company (in The Desolation of Smaug) and Thorin (in The final stretch of The Battle of the Five Armies). If I were to remove anything (outside of Tauriel/Kili, Legolas and Alfrid) I would have removed stuff from the book: namely, the troll sequence. That first leg of the quest where the chase hasn't started yet and the mountain is still too far as a prospect, should have been shortened as much as possible for the theatrical cut, and than re-inserted into the extended cut. I would also have removed or shortened some of Bilbo's story beats: I don't mind that the film opens with old Bilbo, but the framework story is too long.

You're looking at the wrong bit of source material. Jackson's The Hobbit is an adaptation of "Durin's Folk", first, and of "The Hobbit", second. If you're going to critique it, do so on the film's own terms - don't compare it to some hypothetical movie that was never going to get made anyway. What I like about the first half of An Unexpected Journey is not how it nails the narrative of The Hobbit or the character of Bilbo: its how it efficiently characterizes the company. There's great restraint there: instead of trying to give each one a fleshed-out backstory, Jackson and Co. focused on a main cast of six Dwarves (of which five arrive separate from the rest of the group) - Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Fili, Kili and Bofur. The rest are given quick moments: Dori gets to show his manners and be a mothering git, Ori gets to be naive and impressionable; others get visual distinctions: the one with the big gait (Bombur), the one with the head injury (Bifur) and the one with the hearing aid (Oin).

Yeah, but one can never quite tell whether its Williams being influenced by others' work, or whether its Lucas temping the film and insisting "Johny, do that!"

See! I told you! Equality-of-outcome!

That's just what @gkgyver was talking about in terms of source material. Its just an unpopular high-school student with a crush who lives a secret life as a hero with spider-related powers fighting super villains? Great. Everything else about it - screw the source material. What matters is that the film works.

Urgh. Don't remind me. If you can believe it, a deleted scene had Anakin meet Padme's parents: y'know, girl brings boy home; girl gets teased by sister over "boyfriend"; boy gets the "talk" from the father as the girls talk it out in the kitchen; boy and girl go into girl's childhood bedroom - the usual rom-com treatment, just in a Star Wars film...

I'm not the biggest fan of that one. The second one's great, though.

Interesting. I found the false third act to be one of the detractors of the film. Its just too much. There's, I suppose, a discussion to be held on what makes a false third act work as opposed to not, because more often than not - they don't work all too well.

Really? what is it?