oierem

In both cases, the tracking was planned by Lucas and Williams. In AOTC, they started working on the CGI of the final battle very late (whereas early CGI sequences such as the Chase of Coruscant were already completed) and Williams recorded the score a bit earlier than usual (late January instead of February). That, however, doesn't account for the tracking during two dialogue scenes (Anakin's dream and Dooku-Obi-Wan). I can't explain the reason behind the tracking of those scenes. In ROTS, the last section completed was Reel 4 (Battle of Utapau), which has quite a lot of tracking. Other than that, it seems that the "not-ready-to-be-scored" scenes were selected to have tracked music. Williams has been scoring scenes with unfinished VFX for a long time. He scored SW without the VFX effects. I don't believe he would refuse anything.

In fact, the music editor is the one who views the film repeatedly and prepares the sync points for Williams (according to the 1980 documentary), so I assume the editor is the one who handles the BluRay or whatever. Williams probably just checks the scene a couple of times during the day.

I know it's on the log, but as there wasn't an asigned date, I thought that maybe they didn't re-record it. So, I'm assuming that the choir was not recorded separately during TPM and they wanted to mix it differently this time around? Still, I can't hear the differences, and they must be really minor, since it wasn't a rewrite, just a new performance.... (and there were more than one recorded for TMP).

I've wondered about this for a long time.. do we know fore sure the choir was re-recorded? And if so, why? I mean, it sounds pretty much the same as the TPM version to me...

Each film of the OT had12/13 reels (about 10 minutes each). Each film of the PT had 6/7 reels (about 20 minutes each).

Well, season 6 is basically stuff beyond the published books. There are only a few remaining events (Euron's election as King, and Jaime at the Riverlands) that were taken from book 4. Most of the dialogue of the series is not taken from the books, except for the very first season. Of course, there are some lines here and there, but I'd say the % of dialogue from the books is rather small (and grows smaller with each season). Long before S7 most of the dialogue is not taken from the books at all.

Hook was one of the first film scores that I was aware of as a young kid, and that I loved. Long before I understood that scores are written by someone, long before I owned any soudntrack at all, I loved the music of Hook. HP1 was one of the first OST I owned, and I have to say it was a disappointment at that time... just because it was my first experience with the fact that soundtracks were incomplete! Until then, the only soundtracks I had were the SW trilogy double-CDs and the Ultimate Edition of TPM. I honestly believed that a OST would include all the music in the film! I remember desperately trying to figure out why the "Entry to the Great Hall" music wasn't there on the track with that name! lol

The analysis is really interesting. However, I always think music fans have a tendency to over-analyze the meaning of music themes. John Williams has always been very liberal in how he uses themes. He does spend a lot of time creating the "right" themes, but I don't think he spends a lot of time thinking deep meanings for them. I agree that the theme seems to represent a more seductive aspect of the Ark/Medallion, and as Jay says, it always appears alongside with the main Arc theme, except for its first appearance (which is why it's usually associated with the Medallion). Therefore, I agree that the theme is not necessarily a "Medallion theme", but rather a secondary melody associated with the Arc. (There's another hidden appearance of the theme, during the "Map Room" scene, where it's briefly quoted as well). By the way, why do you say the theme is in Eb major? The theme is obviously in C minor, as is the main arc theme.

The fact that the same motif appears just before the Quidditch match is something I never noticed before I read the liner notes.

You misunderstood what I meant. I know that Lucas is lying when he says he had planned the whole thing beforehand (and about many other things, although calling him a "pathological liar" is too much, imho). What I meant is that he says he had it planned because he thinks that's a better way of creating a trilogy than making it up as he goes. He lies because, from his perspective (and from the perspective of a lot of fans and viewers), not planning things out from the start is a mistake. We will have to disagree about the importance of Lucas' contribution to Empire. I know how the process of creating that films went (as you do), yet I disagree about your interpretation of many things: -About the genesis of the story: before Brackett's draft, there's Lucas' handwritten story treatment, in which the story of the film is already in place, and really close to the final film (so obviously, Brackett's draft could not be totally different). -As far as I know, the initial story conferences were basically Lucas laying out the story for Brackett. Of course, she may have contributed to some degree, but Lucas had the story already in his mind (as his stoy treatment shows). If you read the transcriptions of the story conferences for Raiders of the Lost Ark, you can see how Lucas has the story in his mind... and then is reworked by the three of them. -Kasdan came in after Lucas' draft (Lucas only wrote one draf for Empire), in summer 1978, and his three drafts have no substantial differences from Lucas'. Instead, I'd say his contributions to Jedi were much more significant, since they affected the structure of the film itself. -Lucas was present on the set of Empire for two months (out of six), which is a third of principal photography. That's hardly "barely present". Although clearly, Kershner was the director of the film. -About the edit: I have not read any documented evidence about Lucas and Kershner's supposed fight about the edit, and in any case, it doesn't add up. First, Lucas couldn't have been overruled by Kershner, because Lucas had the final cut right. Second, Lucas edited the first third of the film before Kershner started working on it, while Kershner was still filming. Third, Williams spotted the film in early November 1979, and recorded the music in late December. By that time, the picture was essentially locked in the final edit. Therefore, somehow Lucas and Kershner were able to have the film edited in just about two months! Were there disagreements? Of course. But as I said before, the whole story of Lucas being angry about Kershner's cut and trying to rework it... is not documented and isn't even logical. Lucas had every right to edit the film the way he wanted, period. There are facts, and there are opinions. I think we both know enough about the facts. Based on them, we create our opinions, and our opinions differ. So be it. I don't think it's relevant for this discussion, anyway.

That's a valid point, and I'm sure if the OT was released today, it would've been criticised using many of the same arguments against the ST (sadly, it's much cooler nowadays to hate something than to like it). However, there are a few arguments against it: -The OT always intended to be a simple tale of good guys against bad guys. It was meant to be simple, inocent, without going in a dark direction (back then, "this sequel is darker than the previous film" wasn't said as a good thing). Therefore, the narrative stays simple, with the Big Bad Empire againts the Brave Underdoog Heroes. That doesn't need much planning. -Even though each film of the OT went on a diferent direction (Vader is just a bad guy, Vader is the father, Vader is actually the hero), none of them tried to course-correct films, going against what was set-up in the previous film (such as Kylo the Supreme Leader becoming Palpatine's servant). And the ultimate bad guy didn't appear out of nowhere, he was always set up as the ruler of the Empire at least (and clearly as Vader's master in Empire). -DIfferent directors and writers aside, it's clear that Lucas was the man in charge througout the whole trilogy, so even if his vision changed, he at least stayed true to his intentions and dreams. He wanted a simple moralistic tale of good against evil, and he got it. (And yes, all three stories came from him). And anyway, even if the OT was as improvised as the ST, that's not a reason to say it's a good way of creating a trilogy. The fact that you struck gold once doesn't mean you will again. I think it's clearly wiser to map out a whole trilogy first, instead of deciding the plot of each film on the fly, making it up as you go. (there is a reason why Lucas always claimed that he had the whole thing writen from the beginning: it's clearly a better way of creating a trilogy). When people now attack the ending of Game of Thrones (or Lost, a decade ago), they often use the lack of previous planning as an "evidence" against the quality of those series. You could say that it's not necessary to plan it beforehand to create a good story, and that's true. It is possible to make things up as you go and create something great (the OT). But it's also true that it's safer and wiser to have a plan and stick to it.

Really? It's true that it doesn't have the same emotional weight (just because the original film doesn't get too emotional at any point), but Vader killing Obi-Wan is literally the same storybeat as Kylo killing Han. The main difference is that we see the struggle of Kylo from the beginning of the trilogy, whereas we don't get to see Vader's struggle until the very end. In that sense, Kylo's redemption has a better set-up than Vader's (although I agree it would've been a much better idea to keep him as a bad guy until the very last moment, and not redeem him).

I think overall Williams is not as concerned as we, as fans, are about the keeping a thematic and motivic coherence in his sequels. As you say, he takes pride on not relying too much on old material. The OT of SW is the best and most perfect example of Williams contructing a coherent thematic narrative throughout the three films (and even still, many of the minor motifs disappear from film to film, and he only keeps the major themes). The PT and the ST also keep a sense of thematic continuity, but again, it's far from "perfect". He seems perfectly fine letting Anakin's theme disappear, as you said (or Finn's, or Rose's....). And I admit that I don't really like his recent tendency of copying entire passages of previous scores (as he has done in the last two sequels), which is not the best example of thematic development. But we have many other examples of Williams not crafting a coherent sequel score. Home Alone 2 is a perfect example of reusing material, often copying without any new development. The Lost World is an example of the contrary: barely and thematic conections, except for a few brief quotes (and a copy&pasted concert suite at the end). I've often said that I see Williams closer to Mozart (who had the gift of creating unlimited sweeping new melodies, but he didn't really care about developing them), than to Beethoven (who used short thematic elements and developed them ---- something closer to Howard Shore for example). Which isn't a bad thing, at all! It's true that Williams often talks about the use of themes in his SW movies (and others), and even though there are some great examples, I think he doesn't really care that much about developing themes, and he more often tends to just quote them, with not too many substantital variations. In HP3, I think he just watched a very different film and was clearly inspired (and possibly pushed) to write very different music.

I have two fundamental problems with how Yates directs his movies. -Staging/Blocking: everyone on the frame is just standing and looking silently at the lead characters, without the slightest movement/reaction/energy. You have these flat wide shots of lots of people doing just nothing (example: in DH2 Harry comes back to Hogwarts, and after a few hugs, everyone is silently staring at Harry as if they were members of a choir on stage). -Editing: I find that there is absolutely no energy to the way he edits dialogue scenes (and many others). Long akward pauses between sentences, with each character waiting respectfully for the next line (the same scene in DH2 is a good example as well: long stares, no movement, and long pauses between each sentence). The combination of his lifeless staging/blocking of scenes, and his lifeless editing choices drains all energy from his films.

I saw the film twice and I never understood that planet was supposed to be Mustafar (and I still don't understand how I was supposed to know that). Or what Kylo was doing there.

The opening titles were not shot by Spielberg, it was a second unit shot. The warehouse sequence was shot AFTER all the real jungle scenes were shot.

Everyone who thinks Indy 4 was bad will hate Indy 5 even more. There is no logic trying to make another film to "amend" things, because fans will never be pleased. Every new film will make it worse. Once a franchise has peaked, there's nothing you can do. That's why it's wise to know when to end it. Fans always want new films, until they get them; then, they hate them, and want even more films. (Fans wanted more SW. Disney made VII to please them. Fans said it was too derivative. Dinsney made VIII radically different. Fans said it was too different. Disney made IX trying to placate everyone. Fans said it was a stupid film. And the worse thing is, all this was predictable back in 2013!)

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.

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.

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!").

I like your posts but I don't think it's necessary to post such insulting remarks, tbh...

So, if a cue is tracked that sucks, but if it's a new version (even if it sounds the same) that's good?

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).

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.

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.