Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About oierem

  • Rank
    Regular Poster

Recent Profile Visitors

5276 profile views
  1. They don't. The video is referring to the Platform 9 3/4 cue, which uses a "motif" of sorts. The cue was adapted and reused in Chamber of Secrets. That doesn't make it a theme. And much less a theme for the Weasleys.
  2. He's (over)analyzing the significance of that moment in the story and then atribuiting those qualities to a simple motif that it's not too different from typical Williams musical gestures (those "chromatic doubles" are typical Williams to represent tension or mystery, and never family). it's possible that the Marauder's theme comes from the Nimbus 2000/Mischief theme (consciously or not), but Platform 9 3/4 music is NOT a leitmotif, and (a fragment of it) doesn't represent family at all. Plus, the theme was tracked into many of the scenes he mentions. And by the way, scoring Attack of the Clones was finished by January 2002, long before Williams could even begin to score Harry Potter 2, so there's that as well. I think sometimes we tend to overanalyze the thematic significance of William's music. More and more I get the feeling that Williams writes more based on the emotions he wants to convey in a certain scene and not carefully constructing and deconstructing thematic ideas. I guess he is more emotion driven than intellectually driven when it comes to writing music (meaning that he treats his themes in a very general sort of way). I mean, you could create a Youtube video about how the use of Yoda's theme in the reunion scene of TROS is a really clever way to represent the wisdom of the Jedi master, and the ultimate triumph of good, and the idea that a part of Yoda lives in every good person in the galaxy.... but the truth is that Williams just used the theme because he wanted to have a mix of old themes in one of the final moments of the movie, and it just sounded good.
  3. The difference is that on ANH Leia's theme was the only romantic/dramatic theme he had. (and of course, Leia was in the scene) Having so many themes, the choice of using a theme of a character who is not even in the movie is more baffling (and more related to the idea of "let's just have many of the old classic themes to celebrate the occasion!").
  4. I like your posts but I don't think it's necessary to post such insulting remarks, tbh...
  5. So, if a cue is tracked that sucks, but if it's a new version (even if it sounds the same) that's good?
  6. That's right. It doesn't matter much if it was planned from the beginning or not, what matters is that someone is keeping it more or less consistent. Vader's reveal is a twist that, although not planned from the beginning, sort of works with the previous film (Uncle Owen's fears, Ben's doubt...). In any case, the third film goes along with the twist, instead of reverting back. The ST sets up a mystery (who were Rey's parents?), does a good twist (they were nobodies) and then reverts back (her father was Palpatine's son). The equivalent in the OT would be to have Obi-Wan say to Luke "Vader lied, actually, I'm your father" in ROTJ. Who was in charge is debatable (and probably there's not a single answer), but after reading all the material about the making of Empire, I would say that, very clearly, Lucas was ultimately in charge of the film. He wrote the story and the first (actually, second) draft; he story didn't change in the subsequent drafts (which he oversaw, of course). Directorially, Kershner was in charge, of course (although Lucas was on-set for about a third of principal photography). The editing went back and forth between Kershner and Lucas (Kershner couldn't reject anything, since Lucas had the final cut privilege anyway), and it ended up being something they both agreed on. Filmmaking is a very complex process, and it's essentially collaborative. Obviously, Kershner had a huge influence on how the film looks (we could say he was in charge of that), but Lucas determined what the movie was about (we could say he was in charge of the story being told). And in terms of how the OT works (or doesn't) as a single story, who's in charge of the story is more important. (Think about Harry Potter: even though each director changed the visual tone of the story, the story could remain consistent (or not!) because one person wrote it all).
  7. I assume JJ's idea back when they did TFA was to use Snoke as the big bad guy (and redeem Kylo) What RJ did was a good twist: to kill of Snoke and make Kylo the real big bad guy. The natural conclusion would be to have Rey kill off Kylo. Instead, they went back to the redemption arc, and that needed a new big bad guy. I agree that lack of planning was a problem. I don't agree that the classic trilogy had the same problem (much less the PT): even though it's true that Lucas was basically making it up as he went, he was the man in charge through the whole trilogy, and it shows in the consistency of it.
  8. This trilogy is literally a new version of the OT. Obviously, it adds nothing new to the first six, and undermines the contribution of the OT (while it ignores the PT). So, in a way, the ST exists on its own, as a spin-off of sorts. The PT is the story of how a democratic and peaceful republic turns into an evil militaristic Empire, and how a good "chosen" boy turns to evil. The OT is the story of how a group of freedom fighters wins against the evil Empire, and how the son of "the chosen one" redeems his father and brings him back to goodness. The ST is the story of how a new group of freedom fighters wins agains the succesor of the evil Empire, and how a "new chosen one" redeems a new boy turned evil.
  9. The difference being that Papatine was frequently mentioned in Empire (and shown in one scene), establishing him as the "ultimate bad guy", so his appearance in ROJ didn't come out of nowhere (and besides, he was always the guy in charge of the Empire). In the ST, the First Order existed without Palpatine for two movies, and then, out of literally nowhere, Palpatine is back and in charge again (just imagine if they haden't announced Palpatine's return, and we found out about it reading the opening crawl.... it would feel cheap and lame. The only reason it kinda works is because they let us know about it months in advance, so we could get used to it!) The third act is a copy of ROTJ of course: the Jedi apprentice is brough before Palpatine, Palpatine says "turn to the dark side or your friends will die", he/she doesn't, and Palpatine's apprentice turns to the light side instead.
  10. Well, bringing Palpatine back is hardly an original idea; it's the most obvious (and cheap, in my opinion) story development. I don't doubt that it was discussed from the very beginning. Now, whether they had actually decided to bring him back when they did TFA or not is not clear. The lack of any hint of Palpatine being alive in either TFA or TLJ is rather telling. As is the intentional spoiler of letting everyone know Palpatine is back well before the movie comes out (if they had kept it a secret, and we only found out watching the movie, a lot of us would be disappointed at such a cheap option. Instead, they let the idea sink in months in advance, so every fan knows about it and has, more or less, accepted it).
  11. It shouldn't really matter if they knew it from the beginning or not. It only matters if it is consistent with the story (which, I fear, is not). But since it does seem to matter, we should assume that it's very possible that they would lie to us about it. (after all, Lucas lied about Vader being the father from the beginning for this very reason).
  12. I though "Suspicion" wasn't used in the film? In any case, it is presented chronologically if we look at the finished film. The only non-chronological cue would be "Collage", which would have to come before "Elevator Confrontation", even though it wasn't used in the film.
  13. According to that, the Binary Sunset film version should not be in the main program of the SW set.
  14. I'm sure all this info that comes from a twitter account is absolutely unbiased. Sure. Besides, most of the info isn't new: they've talked about the horrible pilot (it couldn't have been so horrible since a significant part of it was still retained for the actual first episode, which I hear it was considered rather good), the first season's episodes being too short (and learning to create new scenes that weren't on the books from that experience), not having previous experience, actors influencing their characters (doesn't this happen in virtually any series?) and so forth many times before. But yeah, let's trust a random twitter user and create an article with a click-baiting headline without contrasting with any other sources.
  • Create New...