Chen G.

That's besides the point: those issues stem largely from the screenplay, which Donner did not write. They just wanted to make it very much in the style of the actual comics: monologing, mustache-twirling villains; moronic hencemen, etcetra...

When you really think about it, genre is a very ill-defined term, so...

Yeah, but I don't think they'll make the war with Angmar concurent to Aragorn growing up. That's a much bigger lapse in the timeline than what we've seen. If you recall, I was the one to suggest that they tweak the timeline so the great wars of Gondor and Rohan happen simultaneously with the War in the North, but to make it coincide with Aragorn's origin story? come on... Sure, but beyond just characters (some of which they are bound to recast) I think they're interested in maintaining the iconography of the series, as well: the things that it is known for - namely, big wars - which something like the war with Angmar has in spades. In fact, its referenced so often in The Hobbit one can almost imagine it was Warner Bros. plan for back then!* (*it wasn't)

Kinda, yeah. I have to say, though, if that trilogy is at fault of being too serious (at least to the liking of some of the members of the board), than the original Superman is way too light. Even when you set out to make a fun, escapist, comic-book, kid film - you always need to have some moments of darkness and gravity, because it creates a sense of contrast that only alevates the rest of the film. Its true of all great kids films (think how tragic the Lion King gets) and 80's adventure films: there are moments of darkness in the original Star Wars, in Indiana Jones films, etc - not so much, however, in Superman. First lesson to be learned: never ever make your villain the comic relief!

Yeah, but in this particular case the films establish the timeline quite clearly. Aragorn's age is clearly stated, and he's actually even older during the events of The Hobbit than he was in The Lord of the Rings, given that in the films only sixty years pass between the two, rather than over eighty, as it does in the book. As for the war with Angmar, since Legolas has to explain it to Tauriel, who we know is six-hundred years old, tells us about the timeline. We also know that the wars of Gondor had ceased not too longer afterwards as Elrond states that "for four-hundred years we have lived in peace."

But, committing Aragorn’s story to TV in a way which is consistent with Jackson’s vision, would require cameos from Gandalf, Legolas, Denethor, Elrond, Gollum and Arwen. I think the better choice would be depicting the war with Angmar, which is also referenced numerous times in the sextet. I’m not a fan of fitting more narrative between two trilogies (e.g Solo/Rogue One) because it “breaks up” the sextet’s flow, as it were. Here, at least it’s in a different medium, which makes it easier to swallow. People probably aren’t going to binge three movies, than a TV series, and then three other movies.

It does push the envelope a bit in the way it depicts the characters escape from the plane; the "James bond opening" isn't as strong as in the other two; the actual plot kicks in much later in the story than in the other two; and the anchiliary characters (Willie and occasionaly Short-round) can be irritating. Otherwise, its fine.

Yeah, I don't really care for that film, either. But Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is much worse.

I don't think we ever had confirmation (or denial, for that matter) that it was indeed Williams' intent. But nevertheless its been rendered in a style that's much more fitting of the kind of diegetic music of that world. A straightforward statement of the Imperial March won't be nearly as effective.

Off of the screen.

Which is what makes it all the more disheartening: that it is a sequel and not a prequel. So this is what became of our hero since The Last Crusade? Great...

You're not wrong, I'm afraid. I'm not particularly taken with either of the two films. There's charm to Christopher Reeve's Superman, but the film as a whole adheres way too closely to its comic-book origins in its aesthetic and theatricality. The Superman score is aces, though.

Oh, its fairly bad. Not outright terrible, but quite bad nonetheless. Its just unnecessary, as is its upcoming sequel. I've rewatched The Last Crusade recently, and its such a beautiful end to the Indy series, that to follow it up with another film is just wrong.

There is none, expect in the eyes in those who attribute "Han Solo and the Princess" to the character of (Ford's) Han Solo.

Nope. It was used in one of the first three Harry Potter films: Hagrid plays it on a recorder, I believe. Again, its the kind of world that lends itself to traditional, instrumental music, and I believe that whatever diegetic music is actually in those films, is indeed in that vein. The world of Star Wars traffics in jazzy source music and/or "ethnic" one (e.g. Tatooine Street music), both of which suit the character of the world. The same cannot be said for the romantic-period orchestral (not to mention choral) music of the Williams scores and its spin-offs. That's why it may feel "off".

Its the kind of thing that I sometimes love and sometimes decidedly don't. I think the issue here is: 1. Its a first for a theatrically-released Star Wars film, so it feels like an aesthetic departure. 2. Its unusual given how this world's character (and, by extension, its diegetic music) is different to the scores it merited. Williams' scores are about this world, but not very much of it. So the Imperial March feels out-of-place as part of the diegetic sound, which always tended more towards jazz. All the films where I like the crossover are ones where the scores feel appropriately of the world of the film, and are in the same timbral and harmonic vein as its diegetic music: e.g. Braveheart, Middle Earth films.

But, seriously, would he? There's not a single melody line in the Middle Earth scores that Doug analysed as two separate leitmotivic entities: not even the Shire theme, whose B-phrase often appears isolated from the main section, and which evokes a completely different image of the Shire. Really, the closest would be Bilbo's theme, with the "Tookish side" section, but even there we got this (appropriately) muddled language of "one-and-a-half" themes. In fact, at one point he activelly denied, to illustrate my point, that the introduction figure to The History of the One Ring is a separate leitmotivic identity: And the important thing to point out here is that Adams knew Shore's authorial intent. We, too, know Williams'. its in the title: "Han's Theme." That really should seal the deal, as it were. But admittedly its also a matter of perspective to some degree.

In some ways, film critics are the ultimate judge of film music, because they judge purely how it services the visuals, not how it functions in and of itself.

Good example! Often you'd have the opening scene presage the tone of the later parts of the film, than dip towards lightheartedness, and then turn the switch: again, usually around the midpoint. Just like tension, tone can - and in fact should - comply with the escalation principle that underlines the three-act structure. In essence: all elements of storytelling needs to gradually ramp-up from the story's beginning towards its conclusion.

I don't think it began with "The Dark Knight." I never really accredited this shift in tone of blockbuster filmmaking to Nolan. I think to tie it to 9/11 and really to the maturation of large-scale filmmaking as an art-form, is the more appropriate approach. While @Quintus is correct, Jackson's Lord of the Rings and his King Kong are very serious films, as were other films coming out at the time. Its not that gritty. Its just that we've been so used to Marvel being light and fluffy that this film's approach was surprising by comparison. To my mind, while it is the superior approach, its one that the filmmaker needs to truly commit to. So, if we take something like Man of Steel as a case study, that film was quite serious until about two-thirds of the way through, but by the time the climactic battle scene kicked in, it just became incongurous with the rest of the film, because it wasn't presented as a commentary and lamentation of the destruction: not in how it was plotted, shot nor performed. It was gleeful. That isn't to say that a film can't be tonally diverse. You can only measure moments of gravity against moments of levity. I guess what sets the two apart, strucutrally, is the order: you can't impress upon an audience the gravity of the narrative that you are telling for it to become buffonish at the end, but you can start with a lighthearted narrative and develop it (usually around the midpoint) into something more confronting.

Well, Williams doesn't just hit upon a theme. He usually goes through several melodies with the director (and, in this case, with Powell), so that's probably where the plural came from. I do believe they probably hit upon one of these and that became the actual Han Solo theme which is featured in the film.

True. Both "tones" of films (we can almost think of them as we do about genre) always existed. One certainly started to assert itself over the other in the early 2000s, and now we're seeing a regression led by the Marvel films. To some extent, that has to do with the core demographic the film is aimed at: in the early 2000s, you could make genre films for adults so you could make them dramatic and serious, in a way that you couldn't in the 70s when you were aiming more at kids. I certainly have a taste for the more dramatic, impactful narratives (unless of course the film is a comedy) Although the occasional palette cleanser is good to have.

Better that than "Oh, I think 0:13-0:42 is a theme for the the Millennium Falcon's engines..." or "The B-phrase of Chewbbaca's theme is a separate leitmotif for his fleas."

It is however quite great that the composer actually provides us with a catalog of themes for his upcoming piece. Its almost like he tweeted liner notes! It'll also make the breakdown of the score much easier to do. People won't be hearing obscure leitmotives all over the place, because the composer has clearly charted his themes for us.

Ehm...