Chen G.

I think a lot of the alternates are bloody awesome. Case in point: the Lighting of the Beacons. Also, a lot of the tracks do very well in serving the function of a theme concert presentation, which I appreciate. And the different mix is something to enjoy, as well: man, the choir in "The End of All Things". I mean, I love the CR, but damn!

I see what you're saying, but for me personally that's complementary to the chaos following the destruction of Laketown. Its very much consistent with historical examples of the aftermath of such catastrophies: think about mass murder of Jews during the outbreak of the Black Plague. Its essentially a further exploration of the line "down with moneybags", and it helps to set up Bard's nobility. Still, I see your point. And it reminds me: I also dislike Alfrid's scenes in the Battle of the Five Armies. As you said, its an obnoxious character. He could work in extremly small doses though (not that there's all that much of him, thankfully). Like I said, interesting topic!

One of my favorite people to listen to talk about movies gave Attack of the Clones a 4/5. I would have given it a 0.5/5, but I respect his opinion even if I profoundly disagree with him on that particular case. It also works the other way around: I know others who have a dislike for certain "classics" with whom I don't necessarily agree, but whose opinions on the whole I very much respect nonetheless. That's something JWFan is sorely lacking: to answer to a radically different viewpoint not with a "what the hell is wrong with you?" but with a genuine interest to know why such a viewpoint is being held by the individual with whom they are conversing. Here, one has to like a very specific set of films, hate another specific set of films - for one's opinions to not become completely eschewed in discussions that have nothing to do with either of those groups of films - Now, that's a perfectly logical and healthy way to conduct a discussion right there...

All the OSTs are a must! The CRs in no way make them superfluous, not as a listening experience, and not as the merit of the individual pieces of music that they contain. Case closed!

Again, it doesn't matter what. It matters why.

I think true understanding of film doesn't depend on which films you like and dislike, but on why. One can have a taste in film that is very eccentric to that of the general film-buff public, and still be considered a discerning filmgoer by virtue of the fact that he can back-up what he likes and dislikes in film astutely.

That's actually a very interesting question! and its interesting because I like the films. I wouldn't know how to point out to any one scene, though. The fact that I like them doesn't mean I like everything in them: not by a long-shot. So, let's see. Just about every scene with Tauriel from her healing Kili going forward: especially her confrontation with Thranduil. It just doesn't work for me. I'm also not a huge fan of Legolas' stunts on Ravenhill. I don't mind his fight with Bolg, per se, but in watching it, I can't ever escape the feeling that Tauriel was more narrativelly deserving of being the one to kill him. It makes the fight feel kind of satiatying fans of Legolas more than doing what was appropriate to the story. It should however be said that I haven't watched the sextet in quite some time: I'm working to remedy that, so my conclusions may change slightly.

For me, watching Return of the King live (with a very polite, quiet audience) was just as much about getting the see the movie on a big screen again as much it was about the music. They're meant to go hand-in-hand. That's the whole point of live-to-projection as compared to an old-school "film music" concert.

Its some of the most stylized filmmaking I've ever seen: juxtaposing moving images with stills, macro closeups with vistas, and all form color and color palettes. I just think its the kind of thing that works better as visual touches sprinkled throughout a motion picture, rather than a whole sequence. Why? What does it not convey in its current length, that it would were it longer? what does it convey that it wouldn't if it were half the length?

I'm not entirely sure. Interstellar is certainly more accesible as a story. 2001 is a simple story, but told (for various reasons) in an avant-garde fashion. Something tells me the average filmgoer will find the latter more palatable. More palatable of course does not necessarily mean better, but the accessibility of the story (or the presence of a strong "hook") is certainly a part of what makes a film good.

I don't look at it from the point of view of the quality of the special effects. Even if they were completely convincing, the sequence would still be overlong. There's nothing in any film that so spectacular that an audience can't become saturated in it. If you see the same thing for too long, whether its the spaceships in the early part of the picture or stargate sequence, you'll get used to it. Especially for a contemporary audience who's seen a lot of science fiction and for whom the concept of space exploration is much less novel than it was in 1968. I still like it more than Interstellar, though.

I like the concept of the sequence; its just that the execution is twice the length that it needs to be, and its true of other parts of the film as well. And to think that in the premiere it was 20 minutes longer! I hear that some of the film's financial success came from people going to see it utterly stoned. Even some later reviews called it "psychedelic" as a praise rather than a drawback. That's not to say that Interstellar is a breezy watch, though! Lethargic as it can sometimes get, A Space Odyssey offers a much more sophisticated execution of a narrative that's actually much more straightforward.

Well, Nolan has an obsession with getting as good an image quality out of his film-stock as possible. Whenever you doctor an image, digitally or photo-chemically, you inevitably degrade the ouright image quality a tad. But, the counter-argument is that we percieve image qualtiy based on other critera as well, vivid colors (in this case) not being the least of them. Speaking of the Nolan presentation: is it the entire film? Because I recall having read that it was just "a couple of reels".

The point is he doesn't do any of that.

True, but Nolan doesn’t do digital grading; ever.

It should however be said that Marvel, too, only has the overarching story figured out in the broad strokes. It’s not like, as they were making Iron Man, they already has a vision for what Infinity War was actually going to be like. The only way to ensure true cohesion is to script, pre-visualize, shoot and assemble all the films simultaneously - the LOTR way. Now, people can make the argument that this trilogy should have done just that (hell, I might agree), but they can’t single out this specific trilogy out of the Star Wars bunch, when in fact all these films were always made one at a time, and NOT as a truly cohesive whole.

There are times where it feels like it parodizes or at least pokes fun at Star Wars, which I guess is what people that are enamored with the franchise take issue with.

I don’t mind those types of things unless they tip over into the ridiculous, which Disney’s Star Wars still hasn’t, and probably won’t ever. When we hear about equality-of-outcome in Star Wars - that’s when we know stuff is getting out of hand. We’re far from that, though. There are female characters, yes, but it’s far from 50/50.

I find both kind of empty. The former in particular I have no desire to revisit. I'm not the biggest fan of 2001, but at least it got me thinking and I certainly was impressed with the vision enough to want to learn about its behind-the-scenes. Very interesting!

The notion that Star Wars = George Lucas' vision is somewhat misguided. Yes, he created the original film and the prequel trilogy, but he didn't write nor direct Empire Strikes Back (the best entry of the series), and only co-wrote Return of the Jedi. It should be said that more often than not these YouTube "critics" aren't particularly well versed in film criticism. They're just well spoken film-nerds. It doesn't make their views invaluable, but it should always be taken into account when listening to them. No, there isn't one. There never was, for any of the Star Wars trilogies. The closest is the prequels, but even that didn't go much deeper than "Anakin falls in love with queen Padme against the will of the Jedi order; and in trying to save her from a forseeable death, he throws his lot with Palpatine (now discovered to be the Sith Lord), kills the Jedi, becomes Darth Vader and inadvertently becomes the instrument of Padme's death and the fall of the republic. He fights his former master Obi Wan on a lava planet and is defeated, his scorched body inserted into the Vader suit." But in screenwriting, the devil's in the details, and those weren't in place until the screen-writing of each of the individual films.

Its not “winging it” - that’s just the reality of making serialized films. Maybe outside of Marvel, the only way to truly plan out a film series from the outset is to write and shoot all of them simultaneously. There is no master-plan behind this trilogy, and even if there were - it’s the execution that counts. Two different screenwriters can take the same story outline and each make something radically different out of it, and when you add a director to the mix...

I've said "so I'm told". I'm not making my mind outright until I get to see it. It was the same with Rogue One.

I have an intellectual interest in film, but in terms of actually going to see films, I'm much more of a casual filmgoer: I only see a select couple of theatrical releases a year.

Its not so much that its memorable or not - that's but the outcome of having a focused narrative; which, I am told, Solo hasn't.

That's consistent with what I've been hearing, as well.