Which is the better scored movie? Philosopher's Stone or Phantom Menace?

[Josh500 1,616]

I'm not asking which score do you like better. I'm asking which score works better in the film?

 

And why? 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,362]

Philosophers Stone, far less tracking.

[Not Mr. Big 4,719]

Stone.  More cohesive, has a much greater emotional impact on the film.  

[Josh500 1,616]

It's a tough choice, but I'd say The Phantom Menace. 

 

Philosopher's Stone is a pretty good movie even without the score. The Phantom Menace, on the other hand, would pretty much be unwatchable without the score. It would lose most if its impact. Not so with PS. 

 

I think JW did a spectacular job on both movies, but he probably had to work harder for TPM.

[Balahkay 629]

PS is the better film so it gets my vote by default. But score in TPM makes it at least watchable.

[Brundlefly 2,392]

40 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

It's a tough choice, but I'd say The Phantom Menace. 

 

Philosopher's Stone is a pretty good movie even without the score. The Phantom Menace, on the other hand, would pretty much be unwatchable without the score. It would lose most if its impact. Not so with PS. 

 

I think JW did a spectacular job on both movies, but he probably had to work harder for TPM.

I know what you mean, but that the Phantom Menace is garbage without the music is not really a reason that it is scored better.

 

I would say Stone, because the connection between the movie and the music is so strong. I have rarely heard such an atmospheric score that makes you dive into the film's world as far as you start the CD! Maybe Legend, but the movie is sadly faaaaar from perfect.

[Arpy 4,159]

There are moments in PS that have a warmth and tenderness to them that elevate simple shots or the characters, not to mention that it's better at giving a narrative arc throughout the score with clear themes developed early on. The family theme, Hedwig's theme, Voldemort's themes etc. are developed whereas I would say TPM has better setpieces where the themes are reserved for Anakin, Qui Gonn, and the duel.

 

One of my favorite scored scenes in PS is the transition scene with Harry and Hedwig in the snowy courtyard. That's the magic right there.

[TheUlyssesian 2,538]

HP1 I would venture is one of the Top 3 best treated JW scores ever, if not the best.

 

There is literally wall to wall music and it is mixed unusually loudly so that the music is showcased extremely well.

 

And the music is just outstanding all the time - literally a dozen memorable themes all very beautiful and long lined which play at full blast almost all the time.

 

It is a film score delight. Also the movie is extremely old-fashioned with slow cuts and longer scenes allowing the music the space to breathe and develop.

[King Mark 3,676]

I don;t think The Phantom Menace score really stands out in the film. The mix is ultra low for a lot of the cues

 

HPSS by far

[Wojo 2,456]

The Phantom Menace is unwatchable. I have no idea how well the score works onscreen. 

[Josh500 1,616]

The Phantom Menace is not as bad as some are pretending here right now. It's okay.

 

And I'd say 80% is due to the music. The music works so fantastically well for the movie, many scenes would be preposterous without the music, but Williams made the whole thing work somehow. In fact, I bet many people are watching this movie just to listen to the music. Even the underscore is great. 

 

John Williams did here what only John Williams could have done: elevate a bad movie to a level where it's rather entertaining and fun, and a smash hit at the box office. Without the music? It probably would have been the biggest flop and disappointment ever. 

[Chen G. 4,413]

I say The Phantom Menace. 

 

Philosopher's stone relies way too heavily on the main theme, to the point that it becomes almost an idea fixee score. Also, the movie doesn't call for a score that is as inherently sweeping and grand as Williams Star Wars scores.

[publicist 4,647]

I don't remember the specifics but in each, TPM and AOTC the amount of endless, musically irrelevant 'dialogue' scoring reeked of desperation. I don't know if Williams chose this horrible fate by himself or Lucas demanded it but a good score knows when to stop. And these literally never stopped. And prove again that spotting is key to film music application.

 

Not that Potter was much better in this regard, it just was a livelier, less cumbersome affair that took wall-to-wall scoring like a sponge.

[Quintus 5,411]

Two mediocre fantasies elevated somewhat by their scores. I find Potter to be more effective in its film whereas I'd rather listen to the Phantom Menace album. A tie.

[Thor 8,114]

Tough choice. Both are brilliant. But I guess I'd pick TPM -- not only because it's the superior score, but because it has more of a "presence". Just slightly, but still.

 

Btw, I really like PHANTOM MENACE, the movie. Much better than I ever did HARRY POTTER.

[Arpy 4,159]

16 minutes ago, Thor said:

 

Btw, I really like PHANTOM MENACE, the movie. Much better than I ever did HARRY POTTER.

 

[Quintus 5,411]

What? The Potter movies are the definition of franchise adaptation pedestrianism, they're wholly unremarkable from beginning to end.

[Chen G. 4,413]

I like a couple of them very much, but on the whole it was never going to be a hallmark of cinema, yes.

 

1 hour ago, Thor said:

Btw, I really like PHANTOM MENACE, the movie. Much better than I ever did HARRY POTTER.

 

I like parts of The Phantom Menace; the whole - not so much. But it does have a sense of scale and adventure: Just on Naboo you visit both forested environments, a palace and an underwater environment, all juxtaposed with the arid Tatooine and the urban Curoscant. That sort of "palette" in terms of setting is essential to adventure films and its something that this film does well.

 

Harry Potter, by its nature, doesn't have that expansive nature, and its mired by bad pacing and a complete lack of a sense of foreboding of any kind. Its just a safe padded room for children. Still, I'm always willing to somewhat excuse pacing issues in an "establishing" film in a series, and while the acting and effects are bad, they're still better than The Phantom Menace.

[Smaug The Iron 552]

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

[Holko 10,020]

Phantom Menace WAS better scored before Georgie&Benny mutilated it to hell. In their current and final states, Philosopher is better, no contest for me.

[Unlucky Bastard 8,493]

Annie Potwalker and the Philosopher's Menace.

[Quintus 5,411]

53 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I like a couple of them very much, but on the whole it was never going to be a hallmark of cinema, yes.

 

 

Actually I'd forgotten about Prisoner of Azkaban, a legitimately well made film. The best one.

[Chen G. 4,413]

Yep.

 

I also like the weight that Order of the Phoenix and The Half-Blood Prince have to them.

[Unlucky Bastard 8,493]

Looking back, is POA really that good? I mean it is just a big franchise film afterall.

[Chen G. 4,413]

I watched it as a part of a marathon on local TV during last Sukkot. Its not an all-time cinematic masterwork, but it is very, very good.

 

The camerawork and visual choices are very interesting, and it is a good adaptation that knew to ramp-up the foreboding elements of the story to present a compeling film.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,362]

Its the best of 8.

[Chen G. 4,413]

No doubts there.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,362]

3 then 1, then 6.

[Unlucky Bastard 8,493]

I mean... I guess it's alright, I suppose.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,362]

It's like Twin Peaks!

[Chen G. 4,413]

11 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

3 then 1, then 6.

 

Nah.

 

The Christopher Colombus entries are the lesser of the whole bunch, and by a mile.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,362]

The first one is truly magical, what a wonderful film.

[publicist 4,647]

It's the 'Hook' of Harry Potter movies. Looks as plastick-y and feels as leaden.

[Chen G. 4,413]

I'm willing to somehwat excuse the pace (it is an establishing piece, after all) but to me it has no stakes. It feels like a padded room for children.

 

And the acting...*shudders*

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,362]

It has a great cast!

[Chen G. 4,413]

Yes, wasted through incompetent directing of actors on behalf of mr. Colombus.

 

This and its sequel are possibly the worst Richard Harris has ever been on camera.

 

The only one who is doing his own thing is Alan Rickman and even he is laying it way too thick.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,362]

He was dying in the second film!

[Nick1Ø66 5,615]

17 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Nah.

 

The Christopher Colombus entries are the lesser of the whole bunch, and by a mile.

 

I tend to agree, but I was watching the first one over the holidays and again I was taken with how successful the world building is in that film...there's not much plot, but it sets up the characters and situations brilliantly, so that in latter movies (starting mostly with the third) we're already completely comfortable and familiar with that world.

 

 

[Chen G. 4,413]

Which is why it gets something of a free pass, for me, in terms of pace. Chris Colombus didn't know what in this film was going to be important later, and what wasn't, so he kept just about everything from the novel, as is, on the screen. Fair.

 

Still could have been better. Also, that excuse doesn't extended to the second entry, obviously.

[Nick1Ø66 5,615]

You're being too harsh on these films.  I think they almost needed a very bland, Ron Howard like director for the material at that point. If someone like Cuarón or Gilliam had done the first film it could likely have skewed the tone for the rest of them. Columbus basically gave future directors a generic template that wasn't hyper stylised and relatively true to the books that they could deviate from (even if obviously that wasn't the plan initially, that's how it worked out).

[Chen G. 4,413]

For the first film, I might agree. I don't hate it by any means.

 

It doesn't excuse the second one, to me.

 

Doesn't change the fact that they are the worst of the series.

[Nick1Ø66 5,615]

I do agree the second one has issues (being overly long one of them).

[publicist 4,647]

Compared to the ghastly offering of acting, pacing and humour that was TPM both are solid enough. But feel dickless, anyway. 

[Chen G. 4,413]

That's obvious, yeah.

 

Which is to say nothing of Attack of the Clones.

[publicist 4,647]

Netflix Germany has them since a few months so i peeked through E1 and 2, which i had not seen since their original release dates, and both were horrible, cinematically speaking. Lucas' staunch belief in himself is doubly surprising as he must have watched these abominations at some point and he's is not a clueless 14-year old fanboy but a literate man. Begs description.

 

[Chen G. 4,413]

Really, episode 2 makes its predecessor look good by comparison.

[Balahkay 629]

I find TPM to be the most watchable of the PT.

[Chen G. 4,413]

Like I said, I like parts of it.

 

I quite like Revenge of the Sith. It remains the darkest of the Star Wars entries, and it very much benefits the film.

[publicist 4,647]

I could never watch it for 2 hours straight. Apart from the general plodding the whole string of sequences meant to build up Jar Jar is so demented even the Ewoks rate as sublime in comparison (they don't talk, for one).

 

EIII is by far the best one.

[Chen G. 4,413]

But than, Episode II barely has any Jar Jar and that doesn't stop it from being even worse...