bored

Yes, I said it before. Johnson's idea of actisubverting expectations is like Santa Claus saying "I know, you love to be surprised by your christmas gift. So, this year I want to give you something very special, the biggest surprise of all. And I am sure, the biggest surprise for you will be, if you get absolutely nothing. So, here it is."

Because he wanted to “subvert expectations”. He’s a genius, don’t you know? 

It's a shame because Harry Potter 1 and 2, whether you like them or not, are phenomenally well made movies, with great practical effects (and great cgi in the second film), good camera work, great direction for the adult actors, fantastic sets and atmosphere, and great music. Stuff like Fawkes and the Basilisk are practically perfectly realized. You compare that to Percy Jackson and Pixels, and it seems like he's not even trying. 

It's a shame because Harry Potter 1 and 2, whether you like them or not, are phenomenally well made movies, with great practical effects (and great cgi in the second film), good camera work, great direction for the adult actors, fantastic sets and atmosphere, and great music. Stuff like Fawkes and the Basilisk are practically perfectly realized. You compare that to Percy Jackson and Pixels, and it seems like he's not even trying. 

It's a shame because Harry Potter 1 and 2, whether you like them or not, are phenomenally well made movies, with great practical effects (and great cgi in the second film), good camera work, great direction for the adult actors, fantastic sets and atmosphere, and great music. Stuff like Fawkes and the Basilisk are practically perfectly realized. You compare that to Percy Jackson and Pixels, and it seems like he's not even trying. 

This problem is hardly unique to the prequel trilogy, having also plagued Return of the Jedi a great deal: the cutting from the gloomy Emperor scenes to the Ewok crap could not be more peculiar if Marquand, Lucas and Kasdan tried. The lesson here is NOT that Return of the Jedi is somekind of prelude to the prequel trilogy but just that, as I always say, it doesn't do to lump these films together in trilogies: its best to look at them as individual entries, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.
 
I'd definitely agree there is a neither-fish-nor-fowl quality to Episode One, tonally-speaking. Its weird to see a film whose overall style is that of a children's film, but which ends with the death of the protagonist. I don't think Episode two has that in quite the same way: that movie is just goofy from start to finish, even if not entirely by design. Episode III has some of this inconsistency, too, but definitely lands harder on the more gloomy side of things.
 
Interesting you associate this more Machiavelian turn in the prequels with Star Trek. I tend to think it more in terms of Dune and, to a large extent, Lucas trying to one-up Coppola and his Godfather films: the structure of the prequel trilogy is suspiciously similar to the "prequel" parts of The Godfather: Part II, and all the Machiavelian atmosphere is very much in Coppola's wheelhouse.

Yes, if you assume simple answers then yes, the film "works". But it makes the film as a whole feel shallow and lazy if it doesn't explain hardly anything that's going on. Yes, you can assume everything I pointed out, but you can do that for something like the Transformers films. Sure we never learn Megatron's backstory and motivations besides a basic "I want power", but you can assume with a few slight context clues here and there. Doesn't make him a well written villain. 
 
 
This comes back to my main issue with the prequels. They want to have their cake and eat it too. I'm not saying something like the camps should have been Auschwitz-like, but showing them as prisons to demonstrate Naboo's subjugation would have added tangible stakes, and the fact that the prequels are both goofy, childlike, family fun, while also supposed to be a more complex, semi-political Star Trek like film doesn't work. The force is both magic that you can make up whatever you want about, and a definite, measurable, sci-fi concept. Those are contradictory. As far as I know, Gandalf's magic is not also a complex physics system.

You all are putting more thought into TPM than George Lucas did when he wrote the script.

I knew this would come. The old cop-out. "It's too smart for you. You just want action. You hate exposition." This could not be further from the truth. My favorite Star Wars story by far, is Knights of the Old Republic 2. And I hate the action gameplay of the game. But I love the story, the exposition, the characters, the acting, the music, the atmosphere, and above all, the philosophy and the gorgeous dialogue. And that game is at least 15 times the length of The Phantom Menace. If anyone's got time for exposition when it comes to Star Wars, it's me.
 
My problems with the TPM, is it doesn't delve into any of what you speak of. It doesn't set up the state of the galaxy. It's called the Republic but it seems to function more like the UN. I don't know what the Trade Federation want besides something about taxation that is never specified in favor of action. I don't know what threat the Trade Federation pose because we never see or hear of them doing anything truly horrific. Yes they unlawfully invade, and they say Naboo's people are dying, but we don't know why or how, besides some vague notion of a blockade maybe causing starvation, or maybe the droids are murdering citizens. 
 
It doesn't set up the Sith/Jedi conflict. Palpatine and Maul talk about wanting revenge but we are never told what the revenge is for. We don't even know if the revenge is history related or personal for Palpatine and Maul. We don't even know what the Sith are besides an assumption that they're the Jedi but bad! Oh and they were extinct for whatever reason. It doesn't lead directly into the clone wars, end of the Republic (whatever the Republic actually is) and the Jedi. It takes 10 years of set up and events off-screen that set up all of that. It's as much a philosophical thesis as Batman v. Superman is. Ideas are hinted at but never explored. 

You argued that I believed that. But besides that, my problems still remain. Yes, I literally know why things are happening, but again, there's no real depth, discussion, and further reasoning for it. Yes, trade routes are taxed, but why is that enough for them to invade Naboo in particular? It's not the Republic capital, so why not do this on Coruscant? Is Naboo rich in resources? Idk, but I guess the weird laser/plasma room in the Maul fight is supposed to imply this. If it is rich in resources, why is the blockade a problem? Most of the actual political intrigue is sidelined because Lucas seems to want to have it both ways.
 
Is the Republic corrupt? We're told that but never really shown it. Chancellor Volorum seemed fairly reasonable, merely wanting to assess the threat before acting on it. If anything Amidala was the unreasonable and corrupt one, bidding for removal immediately in favor of her senator rather than bring the Jedi in as witnesses (who the Chancellor sent btw), allow the committee to see what was happening, show the recordings from her ship of her advisor begging for her to bow down to the Federation, or argue her point better. All we ever get of the Republic's supposed corruption is someone will argue for an extreme move (Amidala in TPM and Jar Jar in AOTC), and everyone agrees with it besides the separatists who are also never specified for their reasons for leaving. No real discussion is ever really had on what is really going on. 
 
In terms of the Trade Federation, yes, invading a planet is not good, but that is not enough of a credible threat for the audience to care, because for all we know, they're holding the planet but doing nothing bad to the people, considering the message begging for Amidala to come back was implied to be set up by the Trade Federation, we don't even know if her people are being subjugated or tortured or killed. In contrast, the threat for every other Star Wars film, even the sequels, is very clear. This subjectively prevents many audiences from being engaged or caring because they don't know what they're supposed to be afraid of. Add to that the unclear reasons as to why they'd go as far to blockade and invade a planet over taxes, and you get a very muddled threat overall.
 
 
On a subjective level, the acting doesn't help, because Shmi seems bored, and obviously many child actors are fairly poor, unless you're an incredibly talented director which even Lucas himself has admitted to not being. Even the writing feels fairly generic, almost like a Disney original movie rather than a supposed space opera. It's all very surface level, like much of TPM. 
 
The Sith have the same problem. Yes, they're working with the invaders, but what are they? I know what they are because of The Old Republic games, but that's my problem. The movie gives nothing besides they're evil Jedi. Are they all ex-Jedi? Does the dark side automatically make them evil? Do they have their own philosophy? What do they want revenge for? These are not nitpicks, these are the main villains' main motivations. We need to know these things. Again, there's implications that the dark side automatically causes evil and the name itself is obvious, but if the prequels are supposed to be building on Star Wars, you would think this issue would be far more explored. 
 
 
That's the problem, it's still in the movie. "You're with him! You brought him here to kill me!" It's just that now all of the setup for that is gone, so now it comes out of nowhere besides "Obi-Wan's been here hasn't he?" That's my entire issue with Anakin's fall. All of the setup of Palpatine, Anakin's motivation to preserve Padme, and his want of power goes out the window in favor of "Dark side makes you insane and evil because Yoda said it forever dominates your destiny." It's so simplistic.
 
That's what bothers me about the prequels overall. Lucas said that the Clone Wars were barely a part of Anakin's fall. That's so much less interesting to me. The terrifying part of the Vader reveal is that this man who we were told was a good friend, was turned into this machine like monster, and as far as we knew at the time, was warped by war, being slowly chipped away at who he was until he became more machine than man, twisted and evil. Maybe he initially drew on the dark side to win the war, and it corrupted his mind over time, or he needed the dark side to survive his injuries of war, or even both. That's what would have really made Anakin a sympathetic and depth-filled character in my eyes. 

Correct. The prequel trilogy is often given as the most planned of the trilogies, but your critique exposes the flaw in that outlook: in some (not all) ways it is, in fact, the most episodic. Another aspect is that the three films look almost nothing alike: Episode I having been shot on 35mm anamorphic, Episode II on 960p anamorphic, and Episode III on 1080p spherical. Baffling.
 
Add to that dropped plot threads like Boba (in any other trilogy, you'd surely have an older Boba in Episode III, something Lucas pondered), the whole Sifo-Dyas mystery, and the rather housewife-y role that Padme is reduced to in Episode III. Its also clear that rather than have a clear hamartia for Anakin's fall in mind since Episode I, Lucas had multiple possible avenues open and didn't decide on one until he was editing Episode III, although he gets away with that much better.

I knew this would come. The old cop-out. "It's too smart for you. You just want action. You hate exposition." This could not be further from the truth. My favorite Star Wars story by far, is Knights of the Old Republic 2. And I hate the action gameplay of the game. But I love the story, the exposition, the characters, the acting, the music, the atmosphere, and above all, the philosophy and the gorgeous dialogue. And that game is at least 15 times the length of The Phantom Menace. If anyone's got time for exposition when it comes to Star Wars, it's me.
 
My problems with the TPM, is it doesn't delve into any of what you speak of. It doesn't set up the state of the galaxy. It's called the Republic but it seems to function more like the UN. I don't know what the Trade Federation want besides something about taxation that is never specified in favor of action. I don't know what threat the Trade Federation pose because we never see or hear of them doing anything truly horrific. Yes they unlawfully invade, and they say Naboo's people are dying, but we don't know why or how, besides some vague notion of a blockade maybe causing starvation, or maybe the droids are murdering citizens. 
 
It doesn't set up the Sith/Jedi conflict. Palpatine and Maul talk about wanting revenge but we are never told what the revenge is for. We don't even know if the revenge is history related or personal for Palpatine and Maul. We don't even know what the Sith are besides an assumption that they're the Jedi but bad! Oh and they were extinct for whatever reason. It doesn't lead directly into the clone wars, end of the Republic (whatever the Republic actually is) and the Jedi. It takes 10 years of set up and events off-screen that set up all of that. It's as much a philosophical thesis as Batman v. Superman is. Ideas are hinted at but never explored. 

I knew this would come. The old cop-out. "It's too smart for you. You just want action. You hate exposition." This could not be further from the truth. My favorite Star Wars story by far, is Knights of the Old Republic 2. And I hate the action gameplay of the game. But I love the story, the exposition, the characters, the acting, the music, the atmosphere, and above all, the philosophy and the gorgeous dialogue. And that game is at least 15 times the length of The Phantom Menace. If anyone's got time for exposition when it comes to Star Wars, it's me.
 
My problems with the TPM, is it doesn't delve into any of what you speak of. It doesn't set up the state of the galaxy. It's called the Republic but it seems to function more like the UN. I don't know what the Trade Federation want besides something about taxation that is never specified in favor of action. I don't know what threat the Trade Federation pose because we never see or hear of them doing anything truly horrific. Yes they unlawfully invade, and they say Naboo's people are dying, but we don't know why or how, besides some vague notion of a blockade maybe causing starvation, or maybe the droids are murdering citizens. 
 
It doesn't set up the Sith/Jedi conflict. Palpatine and Maul talk about wanting revenge but we are never told what the revenge is for. We don't even know if the revenge is history related or personal for Palpatine and Maul. We don't even know what the Sith are besides an assumption that they're the Jedi but bad! Oh and they were extinct for whatever reason. It doesn't lead directly into the clone wars, end of the Republic (whatever the Republic actually is) and the Jedi. It takes 10 years of set up and events off-screen that set up all of that. It's as much a philosophical thesis as Batman v. Superman is. Ideas are hinted at but never explored. 

I knew this would come. The old cop-out. "It's too smart for you. You just want action. You hate exposition." This could not be further from the truth. My favorite Star Wars story by far, is Knights of the Old Republic 2. And I hate the action gameplay of the game. But I love the story, the exposition, the characters, the acting, the music, the atmosphere, and above all, the philosophy and the gorgeous dialogue. And that game is at least 15 times the length of The Phantom Menace. If anyone's got time for exposition when it comes to Star Wars, it's me.
 
My problems with the TPM, is it doesn't delve into any of what you speak of. It doesn't set up the state of the galaxy. It's called the Republic but it seems to function more like the UN. I don't know what the Trade Federation want besides something about taxation that is never specified in favor of action. I don't know what threat the Trade Federation pose because we never see or hear of them doing anything truly horrific. Yes they unlawfully invade, and they say Naboo's people are dying, but we don't know why or how, besides some vague notion of a blockade maybe causing starvation, or maybe the droids are murdering citizens. 
 
It doesn't set up the Sith/Jedi conflict. Palpatine and Maul talk about wanting revenge but we are never told what the revenge is for. We don't even know if the revenge is history related or personal for Palpatine and Maul. We don't even know what the Sith are besides an assumption that they're the Jedi but bad! Oh and they were extinct for whatever reason. It doesn't lead directly into the clone wars, end of the Republic (whatever the Republic actually is) and the Jedi. It takes 10 years of set up and events off-screen that set up all of that. It's as much a philosophical thesis as Batman v. Superman is. Ideas are hinted at but never explored. 

I would say one of my biggest issues with the prequels is how disconnected each of them feel. There is a disconnect between A New Hope and Empire, but there's still a strong connection in that our characters are more or less the same people as they were from the last film (their introduction), and A New Hope sets up Luke's hatred for Vader in Empire, his connection to Obi-Wan, and how he already knows of the force and the Jedi. 
 
Whereas you don't need TPM as Maul is barely (if ever) mentioned again, Qui-Gon is only alluded to in the latter two, and even then Yoda was originally written as Obi-Wan's only master anyway, and Anakin (and even Obi-Wan to a certain extent) is a completely different person by the second movie so his introduction was worthless. All it showed that sets up the second film is Anakin's connection with his mother which isn't even that convincing in my eyes anyway in TPM. Plus everyone's kind of introduced in the second film anyway. 
 
Even the third film has the same problem. It has a bit more connection to the previous with the same villain (dying immediately), and Anakin being more similar than from 1 to 2, but considering how the context from the second film makes the third film worse, the movie works better overall as its own thing, separated from the other two. 

I would say one of my biggest issues with the prequels is how disconnected each of them feel. There is a disconnect between A New Hope and Empire, but there's still a strong connection in that our characters are more or less the same people as they were from the last film (their introduction), and A New Hope sets up Luke's hatred for Vader in Empire, his connection to Obi-Wan, and how he already knows of the force and the Jedi. 
 
Whereas you don't need TPM as Maul is barely (if ever) mentioned again, Qui-Gon is only alluded to in the latter two, and even then Yoda was originally written as Obi-Wan's only master anyway, and Anakin (and even Obi-Wan to a certain extent) is a completely different person by the second movie so his introduction was worthless. All it showed that sets up the second film is Anakin's connection with his mother which isn't even that convincing in my eyes anyway in TPM. Plus everyone's kind of introduced in the second film anyway. 
 
Even the third film has the same problem. It has a bit more connection to the previous with the same villain (dying immediately), and Anakin being more similar than from 1 to 2, but considering how the context from the second film makes the third film worse, the movie works better overall as its own thing, separated from the other two. 

Nothing Star Wars can excite me knowing that there will never be another Knights of the Old Republic 2. No Disney Star Wars property will ever touch the darkness, nuance, horror, depth and originality that that game provided, and certainly not from the director of Indiana Jones 5: Depression of the Lost Youth. At best it can only... echo it, if you will.

Nothing Star Wars can excite me knowing that there will never be another Knights of the Old Republic 2. No Disney Star Wars property will ever touch the darkness, nuance, horror, depth and originality that that game provided, and certainly not from the director of Indiana Jones 5: Depression of the Lost Youth. At best it can only... echo it, if you will.

I got to see Episode III again in a theater last year and went in fully jazzed and ready to give it 10/10 as a fan experience, and I'm gonna be honest, Lucas's direction did kinda make me miss JJ Abrams after awhile.
 
I still think it's a better conclusion to its own trilogy than Rise of Skywalker, and even has more satisfying fan service as a farewell to the saga, in its way. But my memory of that movie was that it's pretty much a roller-coaster between its big moments and oof, all that stuff between Order 66 and the showdown on Mustafar, especially, I just wasn't feeling the urgency at all. I think of those 20-30 minutes as a crucial failure of that movie now, the circumstances of the story are so desperate and yet the movie feels weirdly meh about it because of how stiff it is. 

And the goal is met

Although a rarity, from time to time, JW has written music to score the trailer to films he's worked on. Other times, his music for the film is used in the trailer for said film. What do you consider to be the best and worst of the bunch?
 
Not at all a hot take, the best has to be the HP1 teaser trailer:
 
For me, runner up would be Nixon, the music truly does capture "the turbulent years":
 
What are your picks? Which are the worst?

Huh? You don't mean literally merging the OSTs and FYCs and pressing a disc do you? What a pointless exercise - any of us can do that.
 
At a minimum they should release expanded prequels - surely not too much editing or mastering needed, relative to the work involved for the OT.

Wow, thanks everyone!  Obviously, the most important question to address is how I got those italics. Simple! https://lingojam.com/FacebookFonts 

As for the timeframe: I have over a year to hand in the finished manuscript, but my goal is to have it completed well before that. It's a big book, and publishing is a very slow process. But everything so far is proceeding as I have forseen...
 
It's not a guide to the scores really, but something more holistic, with each chapter looking at cues from all three trilogies from some angle: musical referentiality, thematic transformation, concert arrangements, and so on. There will be a ton of music examples (all my own annotated transcriptions as usu.), hopefully presented in an accessible way that draws in people who can't read sheet music. I know notation and music-theory jargon can be intimidating, and I'm hyper-aware of the potential gatekeeping effect it could on an already niche readership. But at the same time, I think we can all agree this music warrants deep and serious analysis! It's a balancing act for sure... 
 
Alas, I don't have special access to recordings, and can't speak to official expanded album releases, as amazing as they would be! 
 
Incidentally: I don't see it trumpeted nearly enough on these boards but Chloé Huvet came out with a book on SW music (mainly the OT and PT) a couple years ago that is absolutely brilliant and similarly synthetic in approach. The book is in French, which limits the audience, but it's worth getting your hands on if only for the fantastic music examples and charts.  The amount of insight in her prose is incredible too, and it's been a major source of inspriation to me. 

Had to chip in. Might be too late, but I really want to support this. Hopefully it gets more eyes on it soon, because this is truly amazing work. Young deserves to be known as one of the greats.