Chen G.

In interviews, Powell certainly makes it sound like Williams actualy wrote not just the suite but also a couple of variations to be used in specific places in the flim.

The rate of the drop is disconcerting, though.

There are also some minor motifs that Adams left off of the discussion in the liner notes, to be expanded upon in the book: the minor Isengard motifs, Elvish Pledge, etc...

Williams longer-lined themes are always tricky to analyse from a leitmotif standpoint. But they're not all made equal: Han's "theme" may be comprised of two separate leitmotives whereas I would say something like Rey's theme (or other things like the Ewok material, Duel of the Fates, etc...) doesn't. In my eyes, for a long tune to be split into two leimotives, they each need to: Be substantive: not just a random couple of notes out of the unabridged theme but a defined, substantial and distinct section of it. Be separate: each of the two motifs needs to appear completely by itself at least two times in the score itself, and clearly not as a result of tracking or lifting of material. Be thematic: each of the two motifs needs to have a clear and separate dramatic function, both as a piece of music and as a piece of score. Be intentional, preferably explicitly so, on the part of the composer. Having heard John Powell talk about it, I will say that the two parts of the suite can be considered two separate leitmotives: Powell makes it sound kind of like the situation Williams had with the Raiders March where he wrote one theme, and later came up with another possible theme, and just ended up using both. It would seem, according to Powell, that Williams went so far as to spot the film for places to use each motif, as well. So in this particular instance (and a few others like Kylo's secondary theme, the B-section of the main title, the Brother and Sister motif and maybe the B-section of Across the Stars) I would say it counts as two.

True. It may be the biggest failure of the Canto Bight sequence.

True. If a new audience were to watch the episodes in their narrative order, Episode III would take away the twists of both Episodes V and VI. Another thing is that Return of the Jedi isn't a very satisfying conclusion even for just the two films that immediately precede it, much less by five films or, now, seven!

You're right, it does. Something like Temple of Doom is a sequel, but diegetically its a prequel. But that kind of thing can happen because of the episodic nature of the series. Here, certainly with the actual episodes, the authorial intent is that you'll watch them in their narrative order. I always appreciate it when prequels can make that work.

I was thinking that from the moment he talked about writing the theme. Its just the way Williams works.

But not what they need!

But that's not the point of a prequel, now is it?

I'm haven't seen a whole lot of Star Trek, but from what I did see, it has (in this regard) the advantage of having a team: i.e. a group of characters that function not just as individual characters but also as one "unit' that has its own character, so you don't need them to split up too much.

Yeah, it contributes to the story of the series. When it comes to serialized films, I always think - outside of the theatrical releases - how will they function when watching them at home in sequence with new audiences: kids, nephews, etc... The issue with the premise of Solo is that, being a prequel, it undoes the tension surrounding the introduction of Han Solo in the original Star Wars: the whole idea (for a new audience) being that he is mysterious, to the point that you're: Not sure whether our heros can really trust him or not. Think that he is going to go off with his reward, only to be proven wrong when he returns in the very end.

YES!

What next one? I was not aware of such a film. There are only three Indiana Jones films!

Well, this is film music, you know...

He doesn't get a free pass from me. Return of the Jedi is nearly as much a recreation of the original Star Wars (to the point of reusing some of the same footage) as The Force Awakens is. Two wrongs don't make a right, though. Where The Force Awakens doesn't take from the original Star Wars, it draws from its drafts and where it doesn't take from those, it does from the other two films and their drafts. It even recreates specific shots. Its not a deal-breaker to me in watching it, but its certainly there. As for the prequels, there are thematic and structural similarities, but it never feels like the characters nor I watching it, are being made to tread the same path, narrativelly. And while the immediate instigator to making the prequels was financial (what big production isn't?), Lucas at least build some groundwork for them with the numbering of the episodes and with all manner of references to past events in his existing films and by re-editing the existing films to accomodate for them. Whereas any plans he had for a sequel trilogy were shut down entirely by Return of the Jedi.

Wow! Solo behind Attack of the Clones! Interesting!

That was actually one of my issues with the film at the time: that all this drama, a lot of it very well crafted, leads to little more than a flashy and w-a-a-a-y too long and contrived an action scene. There needed to be some underlying dramatic current to it: Obi Wan being conflicted about killing Anakin, Anakin trying to get Obi Wan on his side, Padme trying to stop them and getting hurt in the process - something to propel it emotionally. I'm of two minds about this: on the one hand, I think that part of the issue is that, by labeling the original Star Wars as IV,* Lucas committed to a prequel trilogy without knowing whether he'd be up for it. As it stands, his prequel trilogy could have been contained within two films just fine: The Phantom Menace does very little to push the story of the sextet forward. This meant that 80% of the substance of the trilogy is jammed into Revenge of the Sith, and it can't help but feel rushed or scattered at times. Imagine, for instance, that we'd have a Dooku introduced in episode I so that we would register to his execution, and that Grievous would have been introduced in Episode II so that Obi Wan going after him wouldn't feel like a distraction on the part of the storyteller. On the other hand, if there's a thing I like about the earlier two films is that we do get to see the Republic in peace times, so that we can appreciate how far things have deteriorated in the original Star Wars. Its not so much world-building but an element of the drama. _________ * This having happened after the fact, of course. At some point in time, he was going to call it Episode III, which probably would have benefited the prequels.

I haven't watched it in quite some time, but I recall it being far more effective than not.

@Nick1066 that's very true. Moreso than not retreading familiar plot points, I think credit goes to Lucas for, occasionally, pushing the envelope. I respect the hell out of him for making Revenge of the Sith PG-13, and a well-earned one, at that. Its as bold a move as anything in The Last Jedi, really.

The criticism I've been hearing was legitimate film criticism, not fandom-criticism, and the same is true of The Last Jedi. Maybe Revenge of the Sith will get a fair shake in retrospect, but the other two - no.

Not at all. I don't care for The Passion of the Christ, for instance. But he is a filmmaker whose work I very much appreciated. Who knew this actor would be such a good director?

:gasps:

Than what's stopping you from watching a two-hour mockumentary about Han's dietery habits and bowl movement?

Sure, but there's more to a film than just getting the titular character right. The story is far more important. The critique I'm hearing about Solo isn't about the main character and certainly not the actor's performance. That's all secondary to what seems to be an episodic, none-engaging story.