Chen G.

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.

Because Empire Strikes Back is one. Its not a great track record (one out of eight), but still...

If he did, would that make this film any good?

Except Braveheart, you mean...

Are they? I dislike the terminology "the prequels". I think it was only coined to contrast it with the so-called "original" trilogy. In actuality, neither of these trilogies is a homogenous creation: they couldn't be, given how far apart each installment was, and due to changing directors and writers. For instance, while Return of the Jedi is part of the "original" trilogy, it is in many ways closer to The Phantom Menace than it is to Empire Strikes Back. Its the instigator of a lot of the characteristics of The Phantom Menace: Ostentatious, "weightless" fight choreography, overwrought third acts with multiple subplots piled over each other, overreliance on special effects, out-of-place comic relief, longer running times, etc...

I don't find Attack of the Clones worthy of watching, except in a kind of "meta" state of mind of laughing at it as I'm watching it.

I wouldn't know how to do a rigorous list. I do think Empire Strikes Back is superior in every single metric to the original Star Wars, especially as far as the director's work is involved: its way better shot and way, way better acted. I watched the sextet for the first time just a couple of years ago, and I wasn't really getting "into it" until I watched Empire Strikes Back. It was great! It juggles two subplots: one, a fast-paced chase; the other - a slow, pensive training montage. And it interweaves them so masterfully that the former doesn't become breathless and overwhelming, and the latter doesn't become boring. I dislike Attack of the Clones the most. I really don't think anything in that film works. I hear a lot of people really like Ewan McGregor as Obi Wan in it: I don't see it. Because of how Anakin is behaving throughout the film, it brings Obi Wan down, too: the way he chastizes Anakin in public is so awkward, and its soon followed by Obi Wan doing the same thing he was telling Aankin not to do. Also, his investigation subplot leaves all sorts of threads unresolved, only for him to end up reaching the same conclusion that Padme reached in the very beginning of the film, only to be told off by Windu.

I just don't think Apocalypto misses the human element. I mean, its certainly more of a straight-forward action film than it is a drama, but the characters are fine. I certainly didn't want them to have their hearts ripped out! And, on the flipside, despicable villians (which those in Apocalypto most certainly are) are just as important as sympathetic heroes, so that we are invested in their downfall. I also find it amazing for a filmmaker to make a film so clearly outside of his established visual style: the transition from the steady, very-composed Braveheart and Passion of the Christ to the hand and body-held cameras and extreme close-ups of Apocalypto is the inverse of the Friedkin's transition from The French Connection to The Exorcist; which is to say nothing of the spectacular use of digital cameras: one of the first big productions to have do so. Its also the first film Gibson actually co-wrote. As such, its Gibson's most "visionary" work (as Martin Scorcese called it), even if it isn't his most dramatic.

Hey! Apocalypto is aces! Not a five-star film by any means, but aces nonetheless.

Sure. But there's little doubt that it wasn't the original association of the fanfare. I'm not saying that the transformation is inappropriate. I'm just saying we better not delude ourselves that it was "always for the Falcon."

Its just transformed: it started as a theme for the Rebels and was re-purposed for the Falcon in the sequel trilogy. Not out-of-character for Star Wars. Leia's theme was originally a Luke-and-Leia love theme!

It just wouldn't work with this film. The Force Theme represents all that which is mythic, time-worn and melancholic about Star Wars. Again, very much because it was originally the theme of an old knight hanging unto the memory of a Republic long-gone, and not so-much that of an all-encompassing Force that is above such sentiments. Solo, I hear, doesn't dabble in any of those.

Its intended specifically for the spaceship at the top of the film, and than extrapolated to relate to the Rebels in general. That it is a "spaceship fanfare" would make the transition of association to the Falcon more palatable. It probably suits the Falcon more, in terms of the musical quality of the motif, than Ben Kenobi's theme suits the concept of The Force.

Even on the original Star Wars, its mostly used with the Rebels. The Falcon only merits two or three statements or so. In Return of the Jedi, the Rebel Fanfare is used more liberally in general, but its still used more for the Rebels than for the Falcon, per se. I dunno what Williams said (its worth noting that hearing Powell's account of what Williams said is not the same as hearing a direct quote from Williams), but I'll take 1977's Williams' word: in the Liner Notes he specifically refers to it as the "Rebel spaceship fanfare". I'm fine with it changing association: It happened with Ben's theme, and with Luke's theme; no reason it can't happen to the Rebel Fanfare; but let's not delude ourselves that "it was always intended for the Falcon", now, shall we?

Screenwriting isn't the most consistent line of work. Sometimes you nail it, sometimes - not quite. Well, it was up against one of the Best of Best Pictures, so not a fair fight...

With 2018 Williams? sure. 1977 Williams (regarding a composition of his from that year), not so much.

I dunno about that. Its called "Rebel spaceship fanfare" in the original LP liner notes...

More like out of twenty!

Han's two themes are much more congorous with each other (to the point that to my ear they still sound like two parts of the same theme) than Rose's theme is with the Island motif. As such (and this is coming from one who likes the concept of The Rebellion is Reborn, and especially likes Rose's theme) I have to say, The Adventures of Han is the better piece of the two.

Does he? I would say its the other way. Its Marvel where the studio is stifling the various directors' into a certain, bland, Marvel aesthetic: basic coverage, high-key lighting, hightened designs, abudant humor, etc - all for fear of undermining the cinematic universe's continuity from an aesthetic standpoint. Lucasfilm, however, let the filmmakers do their thing: Both The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi are the products of the respective directors and screenwriters. But because the 21st century audience is used to the Marvel sense of continuity or The Lord of the Rings one (where all entries are made simultaneously by the same production team), when they recieve two films that couldn't be further apart aesthetically as The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi are - they riot. Kinda. The majority of Marvel's output really does belong in the action-comedy genre: very light entertainment without any profundity. Star Wars isn't like that, and as such is held to a higher standard.

Yes, because he maintained the main plot and the themes of the source material by shuffling, removing, shortening, adding and/or expanding the individual story beats. If a book reads like a screenplay as Fight Club does, than you wouldn't need to change as much, but the mere act of changing, removing or adding stuff doesn't make an adaptation any more or less faithful. The quality of the resultant film does!

That's not what being "faithful" to the source material is! The best service a film can do to its source material is to be the best film it can possibly be in putting the main plot and themes of the source material to film.

I'm not talking about Fight Club. I'm talking about the all-too-prevalent perception that a "faithful" adaptation needs to be at all faithful to the individual story beats in the source material: it so doesn't!

That's such a backwards criteria for good adaptation. The point of adaptation is the capture the essence of the source material (be it a book, a historical event, biography, etc...), not every individual beats.

Not Chris. He's a legit film-school professor, and he's a huge fan of the recent Star Wars films. The Last Jedi was his 5th favorite film last year. That's not to say that he is to be taken as a gospel. His tastes are not entirely mainstream (like I said, he gave Attack of the Clones 4/5), but his opinion is a nice reference.