Chen G.

It’s a short motif - it doesn’t have a B-phrase. It has various accompaniments, which often extend over the statement of the motif, but not a B-phrase.

Furthermore, if you were to define the main conflict of the sextet as the struggle between Sauron and the free people and the part Hobbits played in it, and try to apply the three-act structure to it, well: ACT I, which establishes the conflict, would conclude with Sauron’s armies leaving Dol Guldur at five and a half hours in - 25% of the length of the sextet. ACT II, part one, which is where the conflict escalates and which concludes at the midpoint twist, would end with the “twist” of the reveal as to the nature of Bilbo’s Ring, right “between” the trilogies, nearly nine hours in - at 41% of the narrative. ACT II, part two, which continues the escalation and concludes when the conflict is at its lowest point for the good characters, concludes at about the 19 hour mark - 90% of the story. ACT III ends at the very end of the series. So, the sextet not only has a three-act structure, but also one that conforms quite nicely to the textbook proportions of such a structure and to its underlying principles of escalation, thrust, and contrast. I have to say, though, I don't see what's so unfortunate about this: Having written The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien was intent on weaving The Hobbit into it, both through The Lord of the Rings and especially the appendices. Jackson latched onto those appendices, which I don't mind: as long as its from Tolkien, I'm not going to fuss over which part of its writing its from.

In a way its really does. Its such a lethargic movie in terms of pace and format, and I don't find anything about the directing that makes it particularly charming. But the music gives it an air of wonder and a touch of mystery, as well.

Sorry, bad habit. Anyhow, I've said my piece.

Not even the score to that movie whose name is too holy to be mentioned idly?

Getting our ad hominem on, are we now? Anyhow, we're not nerds, just fans of a great character. One of the best of the entire series in fact, and the true protagonist of The Hobbit trilogy. Not to mention both are great shots, and the former a great edit, as well.

The score is one of the things that make the film work for me.

He's done two Williams' scores. I want me a Horner! You know which one...

The Hobbit is a direct prequel, not a spin-off. That it carries a different title is completely incidental: its an integral part of the same story.

I refused to see Solo, but I'm all for the main episodes (which I like) and for whatever spinoffs that would strike me as interesting. The same applies to Marvel, and the same applies here, too.

It can certainly happen. But I've decided that to think optimistically about this series, and the future of the franchise in general. No reason Middle Earth shouldn't enjoy the same courtesy extended to Star Wars and Marvel.

Sure, I'm talking about his craft as a screenwriter and producer, as well. Both equally inconsistent lines of work. Anyway, I never thought nor wanted him to be the showrunner, but I would very much appreciate it if he were "around". Generally, I don't subscribe to the opinion that filmmakers suddenly "lose" their edge. I think a lot of them (if not most of them, really) simply peak early, e.g. as much as I like Gibson as a director, I can never see him top Braveheart. The same is true of Jackson with The Lord of the Rings. I've still enjoyed his later output a lot and many others have, as well.

Directing films is not the most consistent line of work in the world: Most directors had their fair share of lukewarm movies standing alongside their greatest achievements. Those odd stumbles don't define the merit of a director.

Yeah, because why would we want one of the most visionary directors of our time give a helping hand in this...

Dear Empire Strikes Back, Congratulations, you're no longer the least lucrative Star Wars film! And you're still the very best!

I don't think anyone's bothered by strong female characters, per se. I think some people feel that the way such characters come about is a contrived one. I certainly don't feel that way about Rey or even Rose and Holdo, but it is a discussion worth having. Again, to me its more an issue with the faces filling the background than it is with the leads. Getting the cast of these kinds of films to reflect real-world demographics needn't be something to strive to.

But he is, at the very least, helping in picking the creative team: http://www.filmstarts.de/nachrichten/18519192.html I was never too hopeful that we take on the mantle of showrunner anyways. I just want him "around", as it were. Besides, Peter Jackson has a habit of ending up in a more involved position than he originally planned in projects, so... At least he's not involved with comic-book movies. I've had enough of those for a lifetime!

Disney's Star Wars films are still predominantly male-casted (appropriately so, for action movies). There are a couple of female characters at the forefront, but to my mind leads are less of an issue because we accept that they are exceptional by virtue of being main characters. As for "flawed" - I think that holds true to all the characters in the two movies (I can't be bothered to analyse the spinoffs). Rey maybe too good at too many things, but in terms of her internal state she is full of insecurity and incredulity at her own capabilities and about her future. In The Last Jedi in particular she's kind of naive, too, falling right into Kylo Ren's plan thinking he might turn sides. I think the real issue fans have with The Last Jedi, whether they've managed to put it into words or not, comes down to how irreverant it is in the way it subverts the Star Wars "formula", to the point of almost parodizing Star Wars at times. Being a casual fan if at all, I don't mind that nearly as much, but it is a fair point to bring up.

It is something of a failure on the part of The Last Jedi for not being able to walk that (sadly all too fine) line between providing something new and new directions, and still keeping the worried fans at ease. And it certainly has drawbacks for casual fans such as myself, as well. But it’s hardly that bad.

Like I said, by all means make note of those.

Not in the leitmotivic sense, but that doesn’t mean you can’t make note of where the B-phrase is used.

Absolutely. With main characters the issue is also alleviated by virtue of the fact that we expect such characters to be exceptional. But if we were to see, in episode IX, say, as many women in the lines of The First Order as we see men, that would most likely feel contrived because military organizations are predominantly male. Again, more due to biological inclinations than due to social constructs. Luckily, we’re not there yet. When we get there (which we hopefully never will) then the likes of @Mattris will have due cause to complain about a feminist agenda tainting the storytelling. As of right now, I find the use of female characters judicious, well-realized and entirely appropriate.

Sure, but the idea of gender roles, for instance, isn’t the result of pure social construct - it’s very much grounded in our genetics. Scientifically, women are, on average, more attracted by nature to certain professions (which is why, on the topic, we rightfully expect to find them occupying these roles in movies) and less attracted to others, which is why we expect to see less of them occupying in movies. I’m not making a political claim, I’m talking about storytelling in movies. In short: If a filmmaker is trying too hard to reverse gender roles, especially across the entire cast, it will likely feel contrived and quite possibly jerk a lot of people out of the movie, and not out of chauvinism. That’s yet to happen in Disney’s Star Wars, though, so I don’t quite understand the claim that feminism is ruining Star Wars in present tense; but it is certainly something to be mindful of in the future, is all I’m saying. That is all.

I'm not looking at the industry: I'm looking at the diegesis of the films that we are watching. When people complain about feminist agenda effecting storytelling, that's what they are talking about. I just don't think there's ground for this argument at the current state of things: yes, we're getting more female protagonists, but we're not getting equality-of-outcome across whole casts of action films (Ghostbusters notwithstanding), so that's fine. But going forward, concerns about feminist agenda tainting storytelling may prove to be completely founded, as far as action films are concerned.

I mean equality of opportunity, which women in western societies (and in the society depicted in Star Wars) do have. Equality-of-outcome, however, has never been an ideal of the western world. There's no interest for the workplace or indeed the cast of a film to be comprised of 50/50 men and women. This is especially true of these kinds of films which are essentially action films: if they were heavily populated by female characters (as opposed to just a couple, like The Last Jedi), it would feel ridicolous.