Chen G.

Not at all. I just prefer a more exclusive approach to tracking down leitmotives (or themes). I think its more consistent with the way Williams writes: He (intentionally) doesn't go the Wagner/Shore route of writing a large amount of them: instead, he writes 5-6 of them (or, in this case, half of that), which he can feature more extensivelly and make more distinct. I really don't think he would want us debating whether each three-note snippet from his scores is a leitmotif. I think that leitmotives need to have a clear association, and a specific one: if its something too general and abstract (e.g. action motif) than it probably isn't a leitmotif. Likewise, the motif in question has to be substantial, not just be a generic musical gesture or something that's so brief and inconsequential that it might have re-occured by sheer accident - it needs to be intentional. On the flipside, it has to be something intentional to the score at hand - if its something you find across multiple scores by the composer, its usually more of a stylistic device than a proper leitmotif. A good example from another score is the two-note brass figure that James Horner in Braveheart. Its all over the score. Is it a leitmotif, than? hell, no. First, its too generic: at a mere two notes, the figure is defined more by its timbre (growling low brass) than by the actual music. Second, if you try to pin down its role in the story, its really nothing more than "danger" or "ominous" which is far too abstract (effectivelly a replacement of Horner's prexisting three-note figure used for the same purpose in his earlier scores), and third - having recurred in Titanic - its really more of an expression of Horner's style than it is a specific leitmotif written for this score. I think a great parallel is between leitmotives in a score and callbacks in the dialouge of a script. Not every line that happens twice (or more) in a script is a callback. It maybe too generic to be intentional: think about a character exclaiming "oh my god" when facing danger. A lot of the supposed leitmotif being labeled around JWFan are the musical equivalent of that.

You're not. I mean, I do like it, but I am certainly in the minority, and I totally understand what issue others have with it. And I'm not too crazy about the score as a whole, either. Although, like you, I'm not saying its bad by any stretch of the imagination. I probably like it more than The Force Awakens.

Outside of documentaries, TV is still a narrative format. You're watching a certain story take place against the backdrop of the fictional world of the series. The world is never (and should never) be the actual subject.

I actually think the concert arrangement on the album is the superior of the two in terms of distiling the score as a whole in a single piece. For that reason, I actually enjoy the fact that it interweaves the major two leitmotives of the composition, rather than just one.

Star Wars fan or not, you should enjoy the story being told by the films. That's what films do. Books build worlds.

Who cares?!

Its not tricky to recap a grand total of three new themes. The other themes you speak of are either duplications (the Rebel Desperation motif is the "Holdo" material), variations (the material in the opening and closing battles is the opening to the Rebel Desperation material, looped into an ostinato) or a none-reucrring musical setpiece such as Canto Bight. One of my least favorite end-credits suites. I'm hoping for much better out of IX.

Fictional worlds work best when they are not scrutinized, certainly in terms of what's off of the screen. They're just the setting to the actual plot, anyway.

I'm really not in the mind of engaging in a long discussion about The Last Jedi in a topic about Episode IX, so I'll just list pros and cons: Pros: Its just fine! Cons Its just fine...

That’s because they aren’t set-up well, and are often told rather than shown.

So we moved out of certain genres, but we still have good films.

I dunno. I don't think cinema is any worst off then it was in any other period of its history.

Wait, you complain about blockbusters being too grim, and bring up Titanic as an example? I would perspecribe a dose of the second half of Titanic, to be taken once a day for two days; not to be taken with caffeinated drinks.

Given the single, compact suite on The Last Jedi (which I like!) I'm not sure we'll get too much in the way of suites. But I am hoping for something special for the end-credits. Even if its not the end for the episode (it better be!), it will be the end for the Williams "cycle", so it better be his gotterdammerung.

Agree with that disagreement! Although its a film that I myself grew to appreciate more on rewatches than in my first one or two viewings, so maybe that's the issue here.

I think Nolan manages it quite well in his Batman movies. And I think earnestness and seriousness are all the more admirable in blockbuster, genre films with fictional elements. Its true that not all movies need to be like this: its important to have upbeat films, not to mention comedies.

This. People should, at the very least, see the movie and hear the score to see if the two parts even appear (and more importantly, emerge) in isolation, before they start talking about them as separate leitmotivic units.

The unfinished tales have a rare gem of a story that happens in Numenore, Aldarion and Erendis. But the story of Numenore itself and its downfall is told in the appendices with all but the trivial details from the other versions (such as the shape of Sauron's altar) already in it.

Even now, with the estate being very cooperative indeed, acquiring the rights to something isn't something that's done overnight. So if they can get by using what they can currently use - they'll probably take it. And really, anything between the foundation of Numenore and the War of the Ring (except maybe the fall of Eregion which is very much expanded upon in the Unfinished Tales) is told in sufficient detail in the appendices alone. Tolkien's other writings don't add too much to this time period, which is little more than the connective tissue between the great tales of the First Age (Tolkien's original concept) and the two quests in the late Third Age.

And exactly what pieces of important information about Numenore and its demise aren't in the Lord of the Rings appendices? None. Its not one of Tolkien's most well-fleshed out stories by any means.

That's also true. In this particular case even more so because its also moving into a different medium (from film to TV). I think continuity is important when you are trying to tell one story across several films. You would expect the individual parts of a single film to be in continuity with each other - and the same is to be expected of a series that functions as one big movie split into severa parts. If its the same actors you don't need them to mocap their roles. You just need to tweak their appearance. Its not impossible to get right.

Its part of why I thought its a good idea to go further back into Middle Earth's history where such characters either don't appear, or are younger enough that you can accept them being re-cast.

There totally is. I think, going on with the (seemingly quite solid) notion that it will be an Aragorn origin story, we need look no further than what the sextet is telling us: As with most prequels, I'm sure the showrunners will try to enact a lot of the moments that are referenced in there: Well, Aragorn does talk with Eowyn about riding to war with Thengel, when Theoden was "only a small child", so that would very likely make it into the show.

Allow me to clarify: I don't think animated qualifies as a genre, either. But I can still see Stefancos' point, even if I don't agree with it.

Even from a fan-service standpoint, do you really think Dain or Bard would be important roles to reprise within the context of an Aragorn origin story? I don't think it will ever even cross the showrunners' minds.