Chen G.

The Rebel Fanfare was definitely re-imagined by Williams as a Millennium Falcon motif in the sequel trilogy. But its inappropriate to retrofitt that association upon earlier films in the series. The same happened with Ben's theme (becoming the theme of The Force), Luke's themes (becoming the "Star Wars" themes), Leia's theme (which began as a Leia and Luke love theme), Duel of the Fates (which was originally specifically for the duel with Darth Maul and became a general theme for climactic duels), as well as various none-recurring pieces that Williams went on to reprise (Throne Room, the Funeral piece, the Curoscant fanfare, TIE-Fighter attack) - so its certainly par for the course in Williams body of work.

No argument, although it is interesting subject to discuss. Like I said elsewhere, those longer themes are tricky to dissect (from the standpoint of a leitmotif-oriented analysis) and there's a lot of subjectivity there.

So, can we expect a Caro theme from Williams, complete with wood-blocks?

@Quintus I should clarify that a character can be well performed and still be un-interesting; furthermore, a character can be interesting, but be faced with a story that doesn't challenge the character and therefore fails to maintain the audience's interest. That's why the narrative is more important than the performances or even the characters themselves.

That's fine, but how's the actual story?

Sure. A score is never just one or the other. It’s a sliding scale. But Williams’ Star Wars scores are very much in the “about the world” side of the spectrum. That’s why hearing the Imperial March in the diegesis sounds to me like a bad idea.

But, having been conceived as an alternate to the main theme, it doesn’t have its own narrative purpose. In Luke’s case, the secondary theme is more lyrical and evokes his adventures and perhaps even his softer side. With Indy it’s just an Indy theme, and than...another one. So there's no narrative justification to refer to them as separate leitmotives.

Even though I really, really like it, its not a perfect movie. It has a glaring structural problem: "Oh my god, there's more movie!" - "Oh my god, there's more movie?!"

I said "mostly"...

Shore's music is of the world of the film. I always said that it sounds like an opera composed in the reunited kingdom sometime during the Forth Age. And the diegetic music, even when it doesn't stem from Shore's pen, is at least similarly folksy and instrumental/vocal. Same with James Horner's Braveheart - there's diegetic music not by Horner, but its a similar instrumental palette, so when Horner's score crosses into the diegesis, it doesn't feel outlandish. Star Wars - not so much. I can't really imagine a male chorus in the Emperor's throne-room. And the diegetic music, even where its by Williams, is mostly very jazzy rather than orchestral.

Sounds awful. I actually really like it when themes crossover to the diegesis, but only when the score itself is of the world of the film: Braveheart, Middle Earth, etc... Williams' music is about the world of the film, not so much of it. The diegetic music of Star Wars has been, for the most part, apropriately jazzy, so orchestral music feels kind of inappropriate in the diegesis.

Is it played diegetically in an orchestral setting?

Its all a misdirect on the part of the director: Kylo is planning on usurping Snoke from very early on in the film. The only real hesitation we see is him not blowing up his mother, but in the end of the film he commands her hideout be stormed with "no quarter". That's just the thing: there isn't. There never has been. None of the Star Wars trilogies, including this one, ever had a grand master-plan set out in advance.

If you want to talk about ridiculous fan expectations which amount to little more than a re-enactment of the original films, than having Kylo redeem himself has to be #1. In many ways, its the first thing Rian Johnson aptly set to undermine, by making us believe Kylo is still conflicted where in fact his resolve was never stronger, as we are clearly shown in the end of the film.

Also true, but whether that's good or bad is another whole discussion. When Return of the Jedi happened, the details of Vader's crimes weren't formed in George Lucas' mind, and they certainly weren't shown to us the audience as Kylo's are. That makes all the difference in the world.

Let's see... Killed children. commited patricide. attempted avunculicide (twice!). attempted matricide. Yeah, that's pretty damn evil by my count. A character who does those things is beyond redemption: there are a few things in cinema that are as satisfying as seeing such a villain meet a grim ending. That's what should (and will) happen with Kylo Ren. Its no less effective because we can see it coming. Rian Johnson does very little to set-up things to be answered in Episode IX, which is apt because he has absolutely no hand in making it. Whatever JJ Abrams decides to do won't change this film.

Lies! all lies! There is no Indy 5! There is no Indy 4! There is only a film that tries to look like an Indiana Jones film, and sadly another one on the way...

Yeah, but they all usually feed into the overarching plot. Not so much with the Finn/Rose subplot in The Last Jedi... And its just one earmark among many of the the director's utter lack of self-restraint.

Yeah, with a main character being the subject of such child labor. In The Last Jedi, its a throw-away element.

It won't, and it shouldn't. The "ultimate good versus ultimate evil" theme is prevalent in fiction for a reason. Namely, that its not as irrelevant to the human condition as one might think: there are some pretty evil dudes out there, y'know... That's what gives these kinds of film series' their timelessness. You can have morally ambigious characters within such a film, but you can't morally undermine the entire struggle at the heart of the film.

But it isn't grey. That the movie is trying to tell you that, doesn't mean its true to the content of the film. Kylo Ren and The First Order are evil, and Luke, Rey and the Resistance are good - and this holds true throughout the film's entire runtime. As such, issues of morality of arms trades, when presented in such a fleeting glimpse, are nothing but thematic noise. When I saw that in the theater I was just about to cry out: "@#%^ off, movie!"

Yeah, but since they were both alternates of each other, they end up serving the same leitmotivic purpose so you can't really think of them as two separate themes (in the leitmotivic sense) anymore. As Spielberg himself said: one is the main theme, and the other is the bridge.

Because its the one avant-garde film that can also pass for entertainment (or, really, the other way around)... I'm not the biggest fan, but I do like it more than Interstellar.

But its not just the character who is making this argument, now is it? its the film itself that's making the argument. That's my biggest issue with the Canto Bight sequence: not that it slows down the pace, not that it stupid, not that the CG is bad (all true), but that thematically it stands outside of the film's plot. In fact, it doesn't have any one theme: its about animal cruelty, social justice, morality of arms deals. And because it attempts to rope in so many themes, it ends up being all but superficial in its communicating of all of them - all in the expense of what could have been used the deepen the film's overarching themes. As with the rest of the film, there is an evident lack of restraint here. More action, more characters, more twists, more runtime, more camera movement, more, more, more - its all just too much.

Yeah, because JWFan users never do that...