Chen G.

Some of it does look great. Some of it really doesn't. What matters is that the underlying story - while very gripping on paper - is undermined by the dramatically-inert way in which its writer-director constructs it.

The original film had changes as early as its theatrical re-runs. So even VHS isn't completely unaltered.

Since this is Nolan's presentation of the film, I find it unlikely that he would approve digital grading on the trailer. He hates that. Were the trailers to any of his films tuned-up compared to the finished film?

Filmmaking and film theory are a curious field. On the one hand, its an incredibly scientific, technical profession of photography, lighting, special effects, etcetra. But, on the other hand, it is an art form and those who engage in it are artistically-inclined and, therefore, prone to nostalgia and romanticising the past. CG falls into that category: while it has allowed for major achievements in film, it is often derided and gives rise to lamentation of the death of the "good-ol" stop-motion, matte-paintings, etc. To my mind, if it looks good, it looks good; and if it looks bad, it looks bad. How the look is acquired is immaterial. Practical effects have the same potential to appear unconvincing or to become dated, if they're not done right. The relevancy of practical effects in the foreseeable future, I think, is to keep the toll on the CG artists low enough so that they can focus on giving each CG element the needed polish. When there's too much CG-work required, some of it will inevitably not look as cleaned-up as it could. I will say, however, with regards to the specific example you provided, that the CG on the Star Wars prequels often just doesn't look good: either by itself or when it sits in the same frame with a practical element. But, even that would be perfectly excusable, had the story been gripping. People can look past bad or dated effects, if they find the story effective. And that's one last point: we want to believe that we can separate our impression of the CG rendering from our impression of the design and the context of the story, but often we really can't. Thanos doesn't look uncovincing because of the CG rendering: its just a very heightened "comic-book" character design - a Marvel staple. Likewise, if we aren't taken with the narrative, we will be more likely to find flaws even where they don't necessarily exist - the "halo effect."

Possibly, yeah. I don't know how much Disney were pushing for this in terms of marketing. With all due respect to Williams, it isn't that substantial for the filmgoing public.

It means that people like the Bluray transfer better: I certainly do.

That's what I was thinking from the moment it was announced Williams would write this theme: its an intriguing way for a composer to continue to leave his imprint and guide the musical grammar of a film series. But, I really believe its more an opportunity that came up with Williams, having just finishing up The Last Jedi and with Episode IX very much on the horizon for him, to write a theme in the interim for a related project. I don't believe he'd bother with other spinoffs after he completes his nonet.

I think internet film criticism has devolved too much into discussion centered on little more than production value: namely, the quality, or lack thereof, of the special effects, and whether they’re practical or CG, over the actual narrative. You can be engaged in a film even when it’s special effects aren’t that convincing. What matters is that the story underneath them is captivating and timeless.

And even more overwrought than the actual soundtrack! Meh. If Mel Gibson, by far the most old-fashioned out of the three, has moved to digital, that’s really saying something.

That isn't Lando's theme. Its the one for Cloud City. It doesn't follow Lando into Return of the Jedi, for example.

Not every leitmotif has to be (or indeed is) a big tune. Not in a Shore score, not a Williams' one. You only need two or three big tunes per film for general audiences to hang their hats on, and the other motives can be whatever. To use Shore's precise words: "Gandalf is a mediator, He’s a facilitator. He’s a character that moves the action and he’s very fleeting. There isn’t anything that’s specifically tied to Gandalf the Grey because he’s the one that moves between all the characters." And yes, the themes in the Lord of the Rings are culture-driven, but often the culture is so closely to tied a certain character that the difference is all but semantic: Rivendell's theme is Elrond's; Lorien's is Galadriel's. Even in the case of The Shire, the different variations come to denote certain characters: The playful setting is essentially a "Merry and Pippin" theme; the Heroic setting is Sam's, and the Hymn setting is Frodo's.

In Fellowship? Its a very Frodo-centric film, and Gandalf spends the first half of it doing his own thing. There are a couple of main characters The Lord of the Rings don't have individual themes: Bilbo, Theoden, Gandalf, Boromir. Even Sam and Merry don't recieve themes until Return of the King.

His words, not mine.

Why do you think films that exhibit this type of masculine behavior would age so much? We men aren't planning on going anywhere, as far as I know...

I see. I doubt that was intended to be thematic, though, regardless of the recurring nature of the gesture. Lehman classifies it an "incidental" motif. In John Takis breakdown of the score, he calls the first instance you mention an "eight-note horn figure" so clearly he doesn't think much about it, either.

Nah. Shore didn't write a theme for Gandalf in the day because his character was "fleeting". In The Hobbit - no so much, so it stands to reason that he would write a theme. Once Gandalf's presence becomes more sparse and his demise is imminent, the theme dissappears.

There are other motives to be sure (although I'm not certain what the "Jedi motif" is supposed to be), but I'm talking about a memorable theme. Not a little arpeggio.

Good points. Ultimately, its subjective.

Interesting. What than is the reason, to your mind? I mean, with the prequels and The Force Awakens, its clear that Williams tried not too rely too heavily on existing themes. But, seeing the state of the score to The Last Jedi, what was it that prevented him from using it all over the place (a-la The Force theme), even if not for Luke? I do think that this is a theme of which origins Williams had remained very conscious: being one of his most popular compositions and given that he quotes it at the beginning and end of each Star Wars score. Understanding the strict association of this theme in Williams eyes (presumably) would than explain why he has been so spare with its usage post-Return-of-the-Jedi, in spite of the theme's pop-culture weight. Does too!

That's not often: he used it dozens of times in the first three films. And he does use it for Luke: he just inverts it. Hence the Jedi Steps "theme".

Who cares? the moving pictures its attached to are horrible. Besides, its not that great a score, either. A good score has at least two good themes to play off of one another. Attack of the Clones really only has Across the Stars, which it has to flog throughout the entire (and all too sizable!) runtime.

Williams really hasn't used it that often since Return of the Jedi, very much because it is Luke's theme.

Yeah, I didn't think so, either. Just an entertaining thought: to have a Chewbacca theme in the actual Williams score for the last episode. Such a quote (even as no more than a nod) would also make the scores of the episodes and spinoffs intervowen, as opposed to the spinoff composers just adapting material from Williams' previous efforts.

Neat. Do we think it would below Williams to quote this theme in IX?

It is. A leitmotif can have a couple of interconnected associations, rather than just one. Because Luke was at the center of the first three Star Wars films, it made since for his theme to also be the Star Wars theme: in fact, its called by that very name in the liner notes to Empire Strikes Back. But, to me, its how the theme is used that gives one an inkling as to which association is the primary one, so to speak. Luke's theme is used more often for its namesake that it is as the "Star Wars" theme, per se. But since they're both interconnected, its really an issue of perspective.