Chen G.

Feminism is a none-issue, certainly in movies. If you believe at all in the values of western democracy, you are a classical feminist. If however you believe that workplaces, professions (and, to the point, casts in films) ought be populated by women proportionally to their part in the general population - than you're not really a feminist, you've just been misinformed about western values. That is all. The latter is really yet to become an issue with the movie-making buisness, so I don't get it as a complaint against Disney's Star Wars: a female protagonist (and Rey is a fine example of one) is not the same as a 50/50 male/female cast in what is essentially an action movie.

I do think parts of the casual filmgoing public were also dissappointed by The Last Jedi, to the point that they weren't going to see another Star Wars movie premiering just a few months afterwards. There's plenty wrong in The Last Jedi, even with all the fan-complaints aside. Michael Tucker said it very well: "I felt unenthused. The Force Awakens left me excited for more Star Wars. I had to force myself to watch The Last Jedi a second time." The same is true for me.

I always thought the introduction of the concept of miraculous birth into Star Wars was way too on-the-nose, so no.

I see we're dabbling in misandry now, do we?

I'll bet good money it wouldn't be. Concluding chapters don't have a good track record, and for very understandable reasons; and that will hold all the more true if Abrams would feel compelled to provide a strong conclusion not just for this trilogy, but the entire nonet. I have issues with both entries in the sequel trilogy (none of which being attributed to any alledged agenda but rather to storytelling), but at the end of the day I like them both fine. I'll probably "like" IX, as well, but I'm really not expecting it to be the best.

The strings look to me like a 16.14.12.10.8 arrangement, no? That's in-line with the prequels, which is apt because this is a prequel. The first three and these last two of Williams indeed used a smaller section; although Williams also used more brass and would often extended the high woodwind section for a "mechanical" sound.

Well, we humans are an organism like any other; and the basic function of any organism is to reproduce itself, y'know...

Its a very conventional orchestral setup for Powell there: not the 12 horns he used on How to Train Your Dragon.

Yeah, although again in live performances you often get variations on this: usually they replace the grand piano with an upright piano or even remove the guts of the piano altogether and strike those directly. He also uses all sorts of taiko drums (sometimes, more than one simultaneously), and some of the variations of the Isengard material also feature tamtams.

Those would be bell plates, which are also used along with (not instead of) the anvil. In the symphony the anvil is often a brake-drum, railroad track or a special orchestral anvil rather than a blacksmith's anvil.

It would probably just have been Braveheart 2.00 (or 2.50, if you count Titanic), which I probably would have enjoyed. But it wouldn't be anywhere near what it is, true. Horner's Middle Earth would most probably have included: His trademark "danger" devices all over the place (especially for the Orcs), both the original three-note one, and the two-note brass one from Braveheart. Uileann Pipes for the Shire, of course. Anvils everywhere! It should be said however that The Lord of the Rings was temp-tracked with a fair bit of Bravheart anyway.

He explicitly did: he always talked about them as three "parts" of a grand opera. The practical implications is that, having the book, and all three scripts to hand and having seen footage from all three films, he wrote and introduced, in The Fellowship of the Ring, themes that don't have much bearing upon the story of that film, on its own, such as the Gondor and Minas Tirith themes. Another composer, say, Horner (Jackson's first choice) probably wouldn't have done that. He would just use whatever themes each individual film would have justified. So yeah, I would say the trilogy or really the entire sextet is of a piece.

It can’t.

1. Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade: the introduction of a father figure gives this film a real sense of stakes and moments of true drama, while also being exceedingly comedic (in the best possible sense). It’s not only the best of the series - it’s the pinnacle of its genre. 2. Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark: It just doesn’t click with me the way The Last Crusade does. I think Spielberg and the cast were still figuring out how to homage the style of acting of the old serials, and it doesn’t click quite as well as even Temple of Doom in that regard. Still, the action and adventure are great. 3. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom: I’m not a huge fan, but there’s still great action and the character of Indiana remains compelling, even if those he shares the screen with don’t always do. And than there’s another film, supposedly set in this series. It’s not truly terrible, it’s mostly just redundant, and the same can be said for that film’s upcoming sequel.

I’d do it, too, after I’d dig up a microphone...

I've been contemplating making a fan-edit of An Unexpected Journey - not to supplant the extended cut but as an alternate "theatrical" cut, i.e. one with which to introduce new audiences to the series. Once you get them hooked with a concise, action-packed, accessible establishing film (which is what the theatrical cut of An Unexpected Journey should have been) and the follow-up, they can proceed to watch the unabridged films. I think the main issue with the theatrical cut is the first leg of the journey where the mountain is still too distant as are the threats of the Necromancer or Azog, so Trollshaws has to go or at least get significantly cut down; that, and cutting down more on the framing device (after the "James Bond" opening), Radagast and the White Council and you've got a two-hour-ish film. The other two I have issues with, but not so much as to bother with edits.

Absolutely. But as Chris Hartwell says one must not lose the forest for the trees. If you are sad when Kong dies - than the movie worked, at its core. Everything else is besides the point. And Newton Howard’s score works very well, and I’m sure Shore’s would have, too.

Why? It’s a beautiful tragedy. It worked like gangbusters for James Newton Howard.

They did. Its not a Peter Jackson movie: he’s producing it. Does every film that Spielberg produce merit a Williams score. I’ll answer that for you with an example: Spielberg produced Transformers...

That’s my favorite moment in all of cinema. I believe the choral music there (which also appears as Frodo’s dangling over the cracks of Doom) is a masked heroic setting of The Shire theme, which is also thematically very telling. I’m trying to come up with something from another composer: When William Wallace gives his speech at Stirling, one of the reasons it’s so incredibly uplifting is that Horner brings back - for the only time - the music from the death of William’s father and brother - it’s telling us that he is acting on their memory, not just Murron’s.

Garrett is a Star Ware fan: he likes both The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi. He doesn’t have much good to say about Solo: https://letterboxd.com/gstiger/film/solo-a-star-wars-story/

How embarrassing!

Indeed, the first definitive statement of The House of Durin happens in Laketown! Its immensely impactful. One of my favorite moments in that part is the reveal of Erebor across the misty lake. We hear a drawn-out statement of the Erebor theme as the characters react one by one to something offscreen, the music telling us what it is. As we cut to it, we hear Thorin’s theme. It’s a touching, wordless (and utterly of cinema) moment, not between characters in a relationship, but between characters and an inanimate object, and is communicated and made meaningful in no small degree by the music.

YES!

Its a civil forum alright, but its a very conformistic one. One's choices of films to like and dislike needn't be conformist. If you can explain the merit or demerit you find in a film - more power to you.