Chen G.

I think you fail to differentiate narrative continuity and narrative structure: a narrative can be continuous and seamless, but not have a well-defined structure. This trilogy, from the outset, was never going to be congruous with the existing sextet in terms of an overarching narrative structure, because the narrative had already arrived at its conclusion in Return of the Jedi. If it were just one more film and not a trilogy, you could say that the series has a "false third act' in Return of the Jedi. But the third act can't be three-films long. Also, sometimes continuity issues are relatively minor and the energy of the film is such that your mind doesn't really dwell on them, unless you make an effort to. In those cases, I find such errors to be negligble, as is the case in here, I would say. And yes, I hold that it is a bit disheartening to see the cast of the original films come to these ends. But that will all depend on the conclusion in IX. If it all leads into something impactful and profound, than taking such a grounded approach in terms of the treatment of the original cast will have been in line with the approach of the trilogy. If its going to end with something more lighthearted, than why spoil a good thing?

To my mind, the appeal of a multi-film narrative is that one can build character and drama film after film, to achieve greater results than are ever possible in a single, self-contained film. I don't watch it to appreciate the setting, per se. Because its just that: the setting, in which the narrative unfolds. Of course, continuity is important so that we can suspend our disbelief as far as these films being parts of one larger story, which isn't always the case in the way they are made. But what did The Last Jedi do that was in such defiance of the continuity?

That's one of the core issues: for a Star Wars fan, the narrative exists to serve the world of the film: its essentially an opportunity to exhibit it for two hours, more than anything else. As such, when something doesn't correlate with such fans' perception of what that world is (e.g. Rey's lineage), its immediately derided. But, for fans of good cinema, the world exists to serve the narrative. So, making Rey related to anyone within the main cast of the previous films would undermine the sense of grandeur of the narrative by keeping it focused around a very small group of people, and not much else. Likewise, the optimism of Luke's character is also there for the filmmaker to twist for the sake of the drama. In fact, I would go as far as to say there shouldn't be any worldbuilding in films, as such. One of the things I most dislike about the prequels (and to be fair, it happens once or twice in Empire Strikes Back, too) is when characters make on-the-nose references to earlier adventures, naming certain places and people, which we don't ever see. The world should be explored through the narrative alone. Again, all of this coming from someone who wasn't particularly taken with the film. But its not a bad film, by any stretch of the imagination.

It’s just the introduction figure to her theme proper. It occurs two or more times in the score, I believe: once before she starts training with her lightsaber, the other as the Falcon flies across the Crait landscape. It has no narrative meaning on its own. It’s part of the unabridged theme, and can be used on its own as a shorthand for the entire piece. Has Williams ever even indicated that he wrote more than one theme for Rey? It just isn't how he works, typically.

I've said it before: have Jar-Jar Binks make an appearance in the film (with his theme for all I care) only to be brutally killed. You could write it to be the "James Bond opening" of the film; So right after the crawl with the new music!

Speaking of which, seeing as IX is supposed to be more than just any other episode, I'd mark that by breaking the mould of the opening credits music!

Yeah, the film doesn't seem like it would lend itself to the heft that The Force theme denotes.

It hasn't occured to you, because there probably isn't any authorial intent there.

I think the only Star Wars album that has the theme presentations stacked up at the beginning after the manner of an overture is The Phantom Menace. Being the first in the narrative order, it kind of makes sense, too.

Or Horner! ”Mel, I’ve found this Libyan type of bagpipe. Should we use it for Jesus? No? Okay, I’ll just use Ulieann Pipes, than!”

Almost certainly, I’m afraid.

I remember Doug Adams saying something to the effect of “that’s the imagery to which The Force theme is first introduced? A Jedi pushing a laser sword through a door?!” I don’t really mind that. It’s just the opening. When’s the first full statement?

I've said it before, but I really hope Amazon steers out of the first age and make their Television series' about the early third age. The Great Tales lend themselves to the big screen. Something like The Fall of Gondolin would make for one hell of a film!

Well, it does suffer from the trappings of a concluding film, which tend not to be all that great, in the same way that the first film suffers from the trappings of an establishing film in terms of pace. But, to my mind, even if the CG is not convincing, the battle itself isn't empty because it does leverage some good drama. The relationship between Bilbo and the Dwarves pays off multiple times, such as when Bofur allows Bilbo to leave, no questions asked; and especially when Bilbo attests to the character of the Dwarves' in front of Thranduil and Bard. Even a small moment like Dwalin, who we last see try to follow Thorin as he walks into Azog's trap, coming back to help Bilbo as Bolg arrives. Its also kind of an extension of Thorin's inner struggle, or at least a cause of tension within the company, due to Thorin's refusal to get involved. One of the reasons I've said that I've grown to like Dwalin more on rewatches was that I noticed that he has one of the most well-defined individual arcs of all the Dwarves: he moves from being Thorin's most blindly-loyal follower, to standing up to him. That happens because of the battle. And of course, once the company does get involved, it pays off the animosity of Thorin and Azog, as well. The main thing that gets short-changed is actually Thranduil's personal story, in favor of Tauriel's romance. But both of those were secondary storylines from the outset, and do not take a lot of the film's running time either way. I do mind that their stories conclude after Thorin's death. As Lindsay pointed out, it kind of dilutes the drama. But it certainly doesn't undermine it for me entirely. But, as you said, we disagree, and that's fine.

That they are. There's a great discussion about the first film here:

I've heard people say that, but I doubt it was intentional.

That, and the regal, almost anthem-like variation at the Throne Room.

The Battle doesn’t start until the midpoint.

Oh yeah, that's great! I've "re-discovered" that one recently. It was going throug my head quite a bit two weeks ago.

Oh, Twilight is on a whole other league of awful!

Although I've studied film theory, I'm a very casual filmgoer. I don't watch many films per year, and I usually only watch the big films. There's nothing wrong with that. Professional film critics, in particular, suffer from having to watch so many films each year, that it becomes more of a chore than a passion. I profoundly disagree that big, contemporary Hollywood productions are in any way less artistic or dramatically effective than smaller and/or older films. If anything, it were such films as The Lord of the Rings trilogy that proved that the grandeur and scale of the film and the production can also inform the grandeur of the drama taking place.

You've seen the best one. Its the only one of the sextet that I can just pop-in and watch. The Lord of the Rings films I almost never watch unless I'm watching the whole thing from beginning to end.

I would argue that they range from good to very good between the three of them, and I have my logic to back this up. You disagree, that's fair. That's exactly where subjectivity enters the picture: not so much in identifying what merits and demerits a film has, but in assesing their weight on the whole. Its true of all but the truly atrocious movies. Even though I've just poked fun at Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I can see where some viewers would be coming from, were they to stand up and defend it, as long as they explain why they liked it in a way that's coherent. Can you really not do the same here?

He's probably counting that as a tetralogy due to, well, that film.

That is all.