Chen G.

Well, there’s a way to aid in the development of an engaging discussion...

Stuff like Battle of Crait would probably be the result of temp-track emulation because it has no bearing on this fiilm. But we knew going in that the Asteroid Field was going to be a thing: was it used anywhere near asteroids, though?

Ah, lets rename it than! Solo: a fan-service story.

Hell, films can have the odd out-of-focus shots and go as far as to win "Best Cinematography". Braveheart did, and so did other films guilty of the same. What matters is the overall impression, not literally every single frame or shot. But internet pseudo film criticism has, among other things, a tendency to blow such issues completely out of proportions...

How many were there?

Any usual instrumental choices to note?

Its actually a claim I've heard being thrown around quite a big in the online amateur "critic" community.

Given how green some of the locations are, they don't look terribly lush. The slightly desaturated look is an unfortunate earmark of films made in the early to mid ninties. Its part of what I appreciate about Braveheart: its so friggin green!

Jurassic Park does have something of washed-out palette, but in terms of actually directing the camerawork, its aces. Big, spectacular dinusaurs framed from the perspective of the human characters a) creates a sense of scale; b) adds to the immersive quality of the film; c) allows for motivated "Spielberg" reveals, such as when the reveal of the T-Rex' features is being delayed by reason of the characters' (and, by extension, the camera's) view being obstructed by branches, the rain on the windows, etc. This allows you to introduce a gradual (and therefore dramatic) reveal, as is wont to happen on Spielberg films, without it feeling contrived. That's what I mean about the visuals serving the story, rather than being beautiful just for the sake of being beautiful.

Yeah, but the sheer beauty of the visuals is secondary to their narrative utility. Unless, of course, we aren't watching a strictly narrative work. We sadly have no shortage of preety if not outright gorgeous looking movies that range from the "okay" through the "meh" to the "empty": because the beauty of their shots and the way they are composed is not narrativelly-motivated. Prometheus being a good example; a lot of people (myself included) aren't crazy about Interstellar, either; Hell, The Last Jedi had very nice visuals (minus the odd bad CG), but left a lot of people (again, myself included) kind of cold.

Storytelling in film is, usually, done primarily visually. Its a visual medium. But its mostly done through composition, light, camera placement and movement, mise-en-scene set dressing, etc... Having not seen it in years and possesing but a faint memory of it, rewatching it was nice. Its not great, but I like it fine. More than fine, actually.

I can't believe it: it is there! Oh well, I get to keep all my organs and limbs!

In fact, in the liner notes Williams calls it the "Rebel spaceship fanfare" in reference specifically to that ship, although he does use it later in the film as well. It is used a bit with the Millennium Falcon - once when it enters the Death Star, and again as it leaves it. More than scoring the Falcon, I believe Williams wanted to: Not make the boarding of the Death Star too forboding by preceding it with triumphant music. Book-ending the sequence, the results of which would come to serve the Rebellion. By the time Empire Strikes Back came around, the term "Rebel Fanfare" stuck, and it is used quite consistently with the rebellion. The most uncharacteristic uses come from Sailbarge assault and the attack on the second Death Star in Return of the Jedi, where it is less a result of an intentional thematic reference and more the result of Williams lifting wholesale pieces of earlier compositions. This is also why, again uncharacteristically, the underlying accompaniment figure occurs in those places separately to the actual fanfare (this is the so-called "action ostinato"). Outside of the end-credits, its not really used the prequels except an odd statement that R2D2 merits. So yes, I would say the choice to often (but not always) apply it to the Falcon in the sequel scores is incongorous with the rest of the series, but not completely out-of-character, both in terms of previous applications of this motif and in Williams general approach to using leitmotives.

Provided I understood your point, what would you like for the piece? My left arm? My right leg? My anus? Liver? All of the above?

Well, it is a prequel...

Yeah, it’s funny how themes can spoil the film (think Yoda’s in The Last Jedi). Although it’s not quite a spoiler here because it’s one of Williams’ more narratively undefined themes.

So I’m told. Its kinda thematically appropriate and kind of isn’t.

Neat. Is it used any differently to the Imperial March?

Besides Han’s theme, I’m really curious which old themes are in this. So we have: Luke’s (Star Wars) Theme; Rebel Fanfare; Spaceship battle motif; The Imperial March; not a leitmotif, but the Asteroid Field is in there, too. What else?

Oh, I'm just as excited as the next guy. I find the idea of Williams continuing to "guide" the Star Wars sound and leitmotivic architecture even for spinoffs (which he is not scoring) very interesting indeed; and I quite like what I've heard of the tune.

Darth Maul looks best when he's severed in to two. Its Indiana Jones returning to a forth installment (given that one accepts that such an installment ever took place) all over again!

Possibly. Isn't all academia just that? Still, I think the discussion that developed is a valuable one. That's why I "Like" @Falstaft's comments, even if I don't necessarily agree with his thesis on the matter: at least its interesting, and constructive to a meaningful (and potentially mutually insightfull) discussion, which is what an online board is all about. Its certainly much more engaging than me saying something and people just agreeing, or vice versa. And, again, whatever you want to call it: its a very nice tune!

Again, issues of production value. NOT of storytelling.

Ah, I see. An issue of terminology, then.... I speak of "themes" and "leitmotives" as one and the same. You don't. Alright... I also don't think Williams is necessarily forgetful, but I do think we need to distinguish his more fleeting, cryptic comments to his more explicit, straightforward statements. And we also need to consider the time between his comments and the actual composition process upon which he is commenting at any given time: An interview with him ten years removed from Return of the Jedi will not be as valuable as an interview that took place as he was writing the Solo theme (or themes, whatever), to be sure. All very much the basics of textual analysis. As such, I continue to hold that explicit autorial intent remains the most important tool in analyzing the composer's work, although I agree its often appearant from the music (as well the way in which the album is arranged), as well.

That looks so bad its not even cringe-inducing: its diarrhea-inducing.