Chen G.

Yeah, it was a bit of a hyperbole in order to make a point. But its still a very big ensemble. I hold that its, first and foremost, the story of the Dwarves and not Bilbo - and that its better off that way - although, granted, its not the story of every individual Dwarf out of the thirteen; and thankfully so. But you do have main cast of about six Dwarves, plus Gandalf and Bilbo. That's a lot. That's another important difference between this and most films of this type: its not another Hero's Journey. Its about reclaiming one's place in the world, settling old grievences and taking vengenance. Those aren't your usual character motivations in contemporary blockbuster cinema.

Ha! @Disco Stu got on @Bilbo's Tookish side! Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to brutally murder that terrible joke.

I'm think more along something the average filmgoer might come out of the theater humming. The Woodland Realm material is absolutely gorgeous, but its not nearly as hummable as the Laketown theme. Especially for people who aren't going to stick around for "Beyond the Forest." Also, it take a while for the Woodland Realm material to come to the front of the stage, as well: We only meet Legolas at the forty minute mark; or some 25 minutes on the album. One of the great things about the extended edition is that it includes a straight-forward statement of The House of Durin, but its not enough to make it as accesible as the other two albums.

In terms of soundtracks, I think I agree. The Battle of the Five Armies is the conclusion of the story, and the music benefits greatly from that. The leitmotivic density and the variety of color is absolutely staggering: There are some sixty leitmotives running through the score; and everything but the kitchen sink in terms of instrumentation: I always like to think that James Sizemore went to the Wellington Gamelan Orchestra and relayed to Howard Shore what instruments they had at their disposal, and Shore wrote back: "give me EVERYTHING." The Desolation of Smaug is a very interesting score, but its not as readily accessible as the other two, due to the absense of the company's themes and the lack of a memorable theme until the introduction of Laketown. I love how dark the music is, though: it really complements the film; and in a way, the lack of a strong melodic center in the first half of the score complements the company's state as they wander through the Wilderland - itself the strongest aspect of this film.

I can see where you're coming from with that argument, but I don't think I agree. I would say the similarities are mostly in the external, superficial aspects of the story and storytelling. The essence behind both stories and both storytellers is very, very different. On the one hand is an original story; on the other - an adapted one. On the one hand is a trilogy that was made up as its writer went along; on the other, one that was all produced simultaneously. On the one hand is a visionary writer/director who made an entire previous trilogy completely his own; on the other, an overrated writer/director who wrote and directed exactly one good film; and didn't write nor direct two of the entries in the trilogy he was following up. Star Wars is also a much more traditional narrative, compared to The Hobbit trilogy which has fifteen (!) protagonists, and generally many, many more characters in the periphery, as well. Screentime is very different, as well; the levels of violence, too. They're really not all that similar. The issue with The Hobbit is the short pre-production period; that always bodes ill in terms of production value, and in this case it also meant that the scripts weren't quite there in some respects and this cascaded into production and post-production, where the film's (especially the first one) would have benefited from another edit. With Star Wars, the issues stem more from George Lucas' ineptitude as a filmmaker. Whether its with plotting, dialogue, hesistation to go all out with the narrative (see the cut when Anakin starts killing the sand people), uninspired camerawork, flat lighting, etc...

It has too many legs to be a spider. Whatever it was, it was effective; and that's what matters. Its much better than the original idea (which is the more "faithful" to the book) where Bilbo turns into a one-man army killing Spiders all over the place. I much prefer that sequence highlighting the Dwarves. I love how Dwalin just punches a spider in the face!

They do share some uncanny similarities, plot-wise. Gandalf, the character which inspired that of Ben Kenobi, goes to investigate a mystery; a character (I would say Thorin moreso than Bilbo) starts descending into darkness, etc... But they're really incidental more than anything.

Indeed. From a film studies point of view, its an utterly fascinating subject. Its a masterclass at what not to do with big budget, serialized films.

About what? The films? the soundtracks? Anyhow, since when am I the resident Hobbit expert? I've probably spoken about Braveheart or The Avengers twice as often. Not that I'm complaining.

Oi! You leave the Desolation of Smaug out of this! It is not in the same ballpark as either of those two films. Its not even in the same galaxy!

True.

Isn't Prometheus a prequel?

So Kingdom of the Crystal Skull came up on TV... Simply put: no. Just...just, no.

I knew it! Interestingly, Williams quoes "Luke and Leia" over the mention of Han, and "Han Solo and the Princess" over the mention of Leia. As a result, the latter was much more overt in my mind

I don't necessarily agree. I think there is something to be said for starting this story with the Republic very much alive and actually seeing life in the republic so that we can appreciate how far things have deteriorated in the original Star Wars going forward. Its all in the execution: not necessarily production value, but the narrative. I would have even been fine with The Phantom Menace not pushing the story forward, had it worked like a succint little "prelude" to what's to come. And the less is said about Attack of the Clones the better...

Well, The Rebel Fanfare has long ago passed from being the leitmotif of the Rebels to being a generally "triumphant" piece of music that's used in random. It goes as far back as Return of the Jedi. I think if this were Episode IX and the recurring themes would have been within the context of bringing a resolution to Williams' body of work, it would have been easier to digest. But within the context of episode VIII? not so much.

A couple of Marvel films popped on TV yesterday. To me, the Avengers are the best of their entire catalog, and I can't imagine this latest film topping it. As it is, its one of my very favorite movies. ever. But I should clarify that I'm coming at all of this from the point of view that most Marvel films are very much action-comedies.

In terms of people behind it wanting to make a good product, I would say otherwise. In watching Revenge of the Sith (which to be fair I haven't rewatched in quite some time) I always get the feeling that this is the story Lucas has been wanting to tell all along, but ever since he re-labeled the original Star Wars as episode IV he was chained to the idea of a prequel trilogy which, when he actually turned around to write it, didn't amount to much more substance than that of one film: In terms of the overarching narrative of the three prequels, 90% of it is in Revenge of the Sith, with the other two being these cluncky preludes of sorts to this film. Its also the most Anakin-centric, which imbues it with a sense of focus that the other two lacked. It does have Grievous which only exists to get Obi Wan out of the picture until after the midpoint, but otherwise its told as Anakin's story throughout. Granted, it originally had its fair share of politics, and explored the foundation of the Rebellion, etcetera, but the thing that matters is that Lucas had the wherewithal to cut all of that out, because here he knew that the story took precedence over his vision of the Galaxy, and that more than anything, tells me how important he saw it to not screw this one up too much. Also, some of the craft in it does impress me: The opening long take (while it is CG rather than practical camerawork) and really the entire "James Bond opening" was on a different scale altogether to Episode I and nonexistent in Episode II; also the decision to make it PG-13 was quite bold in the context of the series because Lucas felt a responsibility to go for it in order to serve the story. I respect the hell out of him for that. Yep. That it is. The worst entry ever in any franchise of this magnitude.

I can see where you're coming from: I like the action setpieces in the film, and the choreography is flashy without being totally ridiculous (well, most of the time). But it doesn't have the most clearly defined story, because: Anakin's story isn't woven into the main conflict of the film all that well. The story itself doesn't push the Star Wars narrative forward. I also think the four-pronged finale is way too overwrought; and of course there's the comic relief: not just Jar Jar but really all the Gungans. This, of course, besides the technical issues of acting, effects and even some of the framing. Revenge of the Sith has its problems (and I mean serious problems, not minutiae), but nothing on that scale; and it has some of the best structural choices and drama not just of the three prequels but of the entire series. With just a bit more polish it could have been one of the very best of the series!

Now that's an interesting point. Which is better? a deriviative score that sounds deriviative of the composer's previous efforts in the same franchise? or a deriviative score that sounds deriviative of the work that composer's contemporaries?

Like I said, I'm waiting for the nerd-to-square-foot ratio in the cinema to decrease.

Exactly! Or an end-credits suite that marries all these motifs.

I think Revenge of the Sith is a much better formatted narrative, where with Rogue One the reshoots and all host of last-minute decisions made it not feel like one single story being told by one single storyteller. Actually, Revenge of the Sith is one of the better structured of all the Star Wars films: of the original sextet, Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace don't really have a straightforward three-act structure: In Return of the Jedi, the first act begins about forty minutes in; and in The Phantom Menace, there is a main plot told in three act, but its interrupted by the introduction of Anakin (who at this point has very little to contribute to the overall story of the film). Attack of the Clones isn't well structured, either, because the story of Shmi isn't woven through the narrative so Anakin going to find her just doesn't feel like it belongs in the story. Revenge of the Sith has a very defined first act with a "James Bond" opening: it may be a long one, but most of these films traffic in long first acts; It has a very good midpoint, which introduces a plot twist (Anakin turns against Windu) and succesfully delinates the two halves of the film; and while there are elements of the third act that kind of suck (mainly, the way its reduced to a flashy action sequence) its at least much more linear, and that's the main thing I appreciate about this film: its Anakin's story much more so than Rogue One is Jyn's.

At least they got the worst one right. As derided as The Phantom Menace is, Attack of the Clones is so much worse, and yet its the former that's the "infamous" one, because it came first.

The Force Awakens is better. Better paced and more polished. @Disco Stu, a list that sees The Phantom Menace at the top of even just the prequels is not to be trusted all that much. Hell, Revenge of the Sith is better than Rogue One.