Chen G.

To assume infallibility on the part of Williams is unrealistic and irrational. Besides, to say that these supposed “connections” are not intended doesn’t take anything from the quality of the pieces, themselves. It reminds me of people hearing “Nature’s Reclamation” as Merry and Pippin hide around in Amon Hen, as if to presage their arrival to Fangorn. Come on...

Was that Lucas’ plan while he was writing and producing the original Star Wars? Hell, no. Given the film’s success, naturally sequels became an option, but they weren’t preplanned and certainly not mapped out: elements of these sequels (and prequels) existed only insofar as they existed in earlier drafts of the original Star Wars. Most importantly, they were supposed to have been outlined and produced by Lucas himself, not sold to another studio to make. Nor was the number nine fixed in stone. In fact, by the time Return of the Jedi took shape as a story, it essentially put Lucas’ plan for nine films to rest. Originally, the ninth film was set to be the very kind of conclusion that Return of the Jedi ended up being.

Another great example of coincidence. Williams has written about 20 hours of music for this series. Some of it is bound to sound like other parts of it, by sheer coincidence.

I hear the similarity alright. Doesn't mean its intentional. There's certainly nothing in the scene that recalls Vader, and Williams had been very, very concise with his use of that theme in the sequel scores. Doesn't take anything away from the track, though.

I doubt that was in any way intentional. Weren't people hearing the Imperial March in the action material of the climax of The Phantom Menace?

It could be entertaining in its own right. In fact, it probably will be.

Well, Han does lend himself to a mysterious backstory. That's another thing that bugs me in terms of this series, spin-offs and all, functioning as a marathon watch. The whole point of how Han Solo is introduced (especially prior to the "Greedo shot first" nonesense) is that new audiences are supposed to be unsure as to his allegiances, until he returns at the climax.

When George Lucas did Star Wars, he intended to make a movie. A single, standalone movie.

Exactly. In and of itself, no movie is necessary. But within the context of a franchise... What is it about this film's place within its franchise that makes it feel so unnecesary? I would argue that its because Han Solo's backstory doesn't forward the plot of the franchise.

Ah, so the setting is the connecting tissue? But the setting - no matter how intricate or well realised - is just that, the setting, over which the actual narrative happens. Disney realizes that, and that's why their first spinoff was tightly woven into the overarching story of Star Wars, and even now they at least base their spin-off on more than a few familiar characters. A shared setting is, in and of itself, not enough.

Just like a film establishes its own internal rules in the opening, so too does a film series. Had Star Wars began as an episodic series (in the sense of an anthology), as Marvel has, than I'd be perfectly fine with it. But it didn't. I get people want new things out of Star Wars, but its important to distinguish flexibiltiy with infinite malleability. Film series can't be inifinitely malleable, or they'll lose what makes them what they are. Otherwise, what's stopping you from slapping the name "Star Wars" over, say, an earthbound, contemporary domestic drama?

As it currently stands, the main episodes are the series. The spin-offs branch off of it. But where Rogue One at least looped back into the story, Solo doesn't seem to be doing that. It just has characters that come into play in the other films. But the story is more than just the characters that populate it. That's the difference between a unified story told in multiple installments, and an anthology.

That's what I'm saying! I, personally, find no point in this series outside of the main episodes. If it were set up from the outset as an episodic series (think, Indiana Jones) than I wouldn't mind it being an anthology.

Where than is this feeling coming from of "we don't need a movie about young Han Solo" if not from its place (or lack thereof) within the whole story? Its telling that they do use the Empire and the conflict in the Galaxy as a backdrop to this story. While the story of Star Wars will inevitably become more episodic (in the sense of films that don't have a unifying sense to them), its still strongly tied to its main story.

You can feel tension in a scene (or a film) even if you know the end result. I think the reason people feel that we don't need a Han Solo movie is that it has very little to do with the overall story of the series. Like it or hate it, Rogue One did tie into the greater story. This film, other than featuring certain returning characters, doesn't. Its kind of like The Phantom Menace, at the time, not pushing the narrative forward.

I really don't know what's there to appreciate about Snoke or Maz. They're literally bit parts.

Don't bother.

Well, that's not a motion-capture performance that's on par with Serkis' performances of generally humanoid-looking characters. There's really not a lot of Cumberbatch's performance in the film. I'm glad that they went to the lengths of doing it, and I do think some of his little mannerisms do pull through, but for the most part I think it was done to appease the actor (which, in and of itself is important to get the right performance). Yeah, it must be my least favorite motion capture performance of his. But its true across the board with the baddies, so it seems to be more of an intentional direction from Johnson. Oh, the performance is fine, its just the face itself that isn't that great. Motion capture has been used previously to make digital doubles move more convincingly, but such doubles are typically created with the actor at hand: you scan his face on the motion capture stage. To attempt to construct such a double from existing footage instead was valiant, but foolish.

I also think the appendices are the likliest source for the upcoming projects. I think the most interesting (seeing how Durin's Folk and the Tale of Arwen and Aragorn were fleshed out very well in the films) is the War in the North with Angmar. You could play with the chronology a bit to present the key beats in the history of Gondor and Rohan simultaneously. It also has the opportunities for most tie-ins with the sextet: Weathertop (which is even called Amon Sul in the films, too!), the High Fells, Angband, The Witch King, etc...

I don't think it has too much to do with his age. He's been prone to misremeber small details here and there throughout his career.

Yeah, but I doubt they'd bother digging back to Revenge of the Sith's recording sessions, if its a cue that didn't see the light of day on album. And the persistence of some of the elements of that score in particular through the score is, to me, evidence of Johnson's affection towards it, which means that he probably had it on his mind before the time came to temp-ing the film.

Its only dumbing it down if you want the material to be slavishly pasted onto the screen. I love Tolkien's work, but I accept that the best service any adaptation can do to it, is to be the best product possible for its own medium, be that TV or film, while carrying the name and essence of his pieces. The essence of the Silmarillion and The First Age are the three Great Tales. You could do those as films, and create Television content around them. The Tale of Beren and Luthien and The Fall of Gondolin can be standalone films each. The Children of Hurin would probably work best as a two-parter, but you'd have to shuffle one or setpieces around. You can flesh out some of the interstitial material, if you do it concisely and purposfully: e.g. you can use The Sack of Doriath as a "James Bond" prologue to the Fall of Gondolin movie. I'll put it another way: Game of Thrones recieved the TV treatment, but its far less "faithful" (in terms of individual story beats) to its source material than the Middle Earth films are to theirs. The Valar are not only un-cinematic, they're demistifying. In the logic of Tolkien's books they work. In the logic of film (or TV, for that matter), learning about how Middle Earth came to be would just take some of the magic of it away, I feel. A good adaptation should steer around the Valar as much as possible, much as the films we currently have had. You can open with a film about The Tale of Beren and Luthien, starting with a "James Bond" prologue about the the Theft of the Jewels while still keeping the Valar and their nature veiled. He passed him by as Turin was looking for Finduilas.

I think there are parts of Tolkien's vision that are begging to be adapted. Namely, the Great Tales of the First Age. But I would say those lend themselves more to the big screen.

I doubt Johnson used any piece like that. Typically, temp-tracks are constructed from the album release.

If you look at the other cinematic universes - Star Wars, Marvel and the Wizarding World - they are already growning longer than the Middle Earth universe currently is. And Tolkien's universe is the grand-dady of at least two of those!