imperialscum

DominicCobb said:

imperialscum said:

DominicCobb said:

I feel like we’ve been this before, but memorability is but a small aspect of the quality of a film’s score.

It all comes down to individual impression which then relates to memorability.

Yet somehow I remember you and you’re complete shit.

Bad impression or good impression, it is all the same when it comes to memorability, as long as something actually makes an impression on you.

DominicCobb said:

I guess some people just have a more refined taste when it comes to their “individual impression” beyond whether they can remember a piece of music they heard two years later.

You guess wrong. If something makes an impression on you, then you will remember it. If not, you will most likely forget it. That is just how human brain work.

DominicCobb said:

I feel like we’ve been this before, but memorability is but a small aspect of the quality of a film’s score.

Music is art and therefore completely subjective and subjective things do not have quality. It all comes down to individual impression which then relates to memorability.

dahmage said:

imperialscum said:

chyron8472 said:

generalfrevious said:

DominicCobb said:

Lord Haseo said:

rodneyfaile said:

The Force Awakens and Rogue One are superior to the prequels in every way.

Not in terms of their soundtracks.

That’s very much up for debate.

I can’t remember any [music] from the recent films, but I absolutely remember at least one song from each prequel film.

March of the Resistance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueqKtype7Kk

Rey’s Theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65As1V0vQDM

You don’t remember those?

I could actually not remember either of those. And it is probably not music’s fault but rather unmemorable nature of TFA.

who are you again?

Sorry, I do not introduce myself to peasants.

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

imperialscum said:

chyron8472 said:

generalfrevious said:

DominicCobb said:

Lord Haseo said:

rodneyfaile said:

The Force Awakens and Rogue One are superior to the prequels in every way.

Not in terms of their soundtracks.

That’s very much up for debate.

I can’t remember any [music] from the recent films, but I absolutely remember at least one song from each prequel film.

March of the Resistance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueqKtype7Kk

Rey’s Theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65As1V0vQDM

You don’t remember those?

I could actually not remember either of those. And it is probably not music’s fault but rather unmemorable nature of TFA.

A film is not going to be so memorable if you’ve seen it at most twice and not since over 2 years ago.

Yeah, no.

It may not be an instant classic by any stretch, but I think saying “I don’t remember the music because the movie is unmemorable” is an unfair comparison when one barely has any interest in it to begin with.

You imply that I went to see it biased somehow. I went into theatre open-minded and interested. It is just that TFA was bad.

Anyway, I did not blame it on the film. I just said “probably”. It could be that the music is unmemorable as well.

TV’s Frink said:

imperialscum said:

For example, Luke does not actually change much in ESB.

No.

I am glad we agree.

chyron8472 said:

imperialscum said:

chyron8472 said:

generalfrevious said:

DominicCobb said:

Lord Haseo said:

rodneyfaile said:

The Force Awakens and Rogue One are superior to the prequels in every way.

Not in terms of their soundtracks.

That’s very much up for debate.

I can’t remember any [music] from the recent films, but I absolutely remember at least one song from each prequel film.

March of the Resistance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueqKtype7Kk

Rey’s Theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65As1V0vQDM

You don’t remember those?

I could actually not remember either of those. And it is probably not music’s fault but rather unmemorable nature of TFA.

It is not going to be so memorable if you’ve seen it at most twice and not since over 2 years ago.

I have seen many films just once and maybe 10 years ago and they were memorable. TFA is simply not.

Anyway, I might give a soundtrack another chance.

chyron8472 said:

generalfrevious said:

DominicCobb said:

Lord Haseo said:

rodneyfaile said:

The Force Awakens and Rogue One are superior to the prequels in every way.

Not in terms of their soundtracks.

That’s very much up for debate.

I can’t remember any [music] from the recent films, but I absolutely remember at least one song from each prequel film.

March of the Resistance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueqKtype7Kk

Rey’s Theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65As1V0vQDM

You don’t remember those?

I could actually not remember either of those. And it is probably not music’s fault but rather unmemorable nature of TFA.

DrDre said:

imperialscum said:

ROTJ had some of the best character development in OT. While Han’s character development in ESB was great, I think Luke’s and Vader’s character developments in ROTJ were even a level above that.

I disagree. The Luke/Vader arc was great, but it was the only significant arc in the film. The other characters were just going through the motions, shells of their former selfs. TESB had great arcs for all the main characters. Every character was in a very different place personally at the end of the second installment from where they started off. This puts TESB miles ahead of ROTJ in the character development department.

Different place in terms of character? Not entirely true. For example, Luke does not actually change much in ESB. He is still this enthusiastic and reckless guy as he was at the beginning. He leaves Yoda’s training pretty much the same person (recklessly nonetheless). Leia again does not change much besides finally revealing her feelings to Han. The only one with a significant change is Han’s character. It is unfortunate that Lucas made Leia proclaim her love to Han already in ESB. I think iff he would leave that for ROTJ, those two character could be used way better in ROTJ.

In ROTJ Luke becomes completely different person compared to ANH and ESB. Same goes for Vader. While Vader was likeable and badass in ANH and ESB, he was pretty one dimensional. In ROTJ his character get a lot of depth and becomes very interesting. Even Leia and Han actually get development in ROTJ and are considerably different compared to ANH and ESB. While it might be a development you do not like but it is still a considerable development.

Anyway, I did not say ROTJ is overall the best in terms of character development. I just said that Luke’s and Vader’s character development are individually better than anything seen in ANH or ESB.

ROTJ had some of the best character development in OT. While Han’s character development in ESB was great, I think Luke’s and Vader’s character developments in ROTJ were even a level above that.

Jeebus said:

I can’t imagine a world where TFA is worse than TPM.

That world is called reality. You do not need to imagine it.

When it comes to score, ANH is definitely the best. If nothing else, lots of ANH music is reused in the subsequent scores.

DominicCobb said:

imperialscum said:

SilverWook said:

Lucas was an artist who became a businessman though.

I would say PT is a strong evidence of contrary. Even though PT sucked and was receiving lots of criticism since TPM, he was making what he wanted and not what audience wanted/expected. He could make films about Anakin/Vader being likeable badass, which is what most of people would love/expect to see, but instead he followed his own unpopular story where Anakin/Vader was an annoying whiner.

This isn’t true at all, Lucas changed a lot due to audience response.

The only possible change I can think of is giving less screen time to Jar Jar in AOTC and ROTS, which would not be a lot. Even that would still be just an assumption he did it because of the audience.

I do not know who fell victim to who, but the fact is that TFA is a shitty collection of rehash elements. Anyway, it seems more likely that JJ fell victim to Disney, assuming he did not willingly collaborate to make that shit.

SilverWook said:

He approved everything that was made, or at least he used to. There is an old interview circa ESB where Lucas talks about the merchandising ideas he turned down for Star Wars as they were “junk” in his opinion.

As I said, what you are on about has nothing to do with one being an artist or not. It is being about whether one is willing to trade useless pride in exchange for conditions that will facilitate artistic freedom. If one is a true artist, he/she will value artistic freedom more than some petty thing like that.

SilverWook said:

imperialscum said:

SilverWook said:

Lucas was an artist who became a businessman though.

I would say PT is a strong evidence of contrary. Even though PT sucked and was receiving lots of criticism since TPM, he was making what he wanted and not what audience wanted/expected. He could make films about Anakin/Vader being likeable badass, which is what most of people would love/expect to see, but instead he followed his own unpopular story where Anakin/Vader was an annoying whiner.

He still signed off on the biggest avalanche of merchandising rivaling even the OT for Phantom Menace. A good portion of it being crap that gathered dust on shelves for years. Would 1970’s George have allowed this to be made?

That does not change anything regarding him being an artist. He was not the one making all the merchandising stuff. He just allowed other people to make and sell it in exchange for profit. This is not a fairytale. We live in a real world. Primarily thanks to merchandising (from 1977 onward), he was able to retain his artistic freedom to make what he actually wanted.

SilverWook said:

Lucas was an artist who became a businessman though.

I would say PT is a strong evidence of contrary. Even though PT sucked and was receiving lots of criticism since TPM, he was making what he wanted and not what audience wanted/expected. He could make films about Anakin/Vader being likeable badass, which is what most of people would love/expect to see, but instead he followed his own unpopular story where Anakin/Vader was an annoying whiner.

Well this a bit unfair comparison as Lucas was an artist while she is a businesswoman.

And yes, so far she is way worse than Lucas. First Star Wars film since she took over is also the worst Star Wars film ever made. The future does not look bright either, but we will see. At least R1 was decent.

Actually this could be more interesting than Han Solo or Obi-Wan films…

TV’s Frink said:

Morgan the Boost said:

TV’s Frink said:

I find it highly suspicious that our resident trolls have come back at the exact same time, btw.

Am I in that group? I’ll challenge you to a dual.

Difference is you’re trolling for laughs, and it worked.

Yes that is the difference… because when you do it, it does not work.

TV’s Frink said:

I’m starting to think Warbler and Impscum are the same person, because neither understand how language works.

sigh

DominicCobb said:

I think whether that makes them indie films is entirely up for debate.

It is not under a debate. The main creator financed his films. That is pretty much as independent as one can go.

To call them an art films is just to be completely ignorant of what that phrase means.

Not this shit again…

TV’s Frink said:

imperialscum said:

yhwx said:

All films are art but “art films” are a specific genre with specific general characteristics.

That is like saying “Every car is a vehicle but the term “vehicle car” will from now on be used to describe only sports car”. It is simply stupid usage of term for what it is trying to define.

You can say it’s stupid all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is how it is used. Go ask people on the street if they think Jurassic Park is an art film and see how many say yes.

Just because something stupid has been established it does not mean one should just accept it. If you went on the street 500 years ago and asked people if the Earth is flat they would probably tell you “yes, it is”. It would not make it any less stupid.

yhwx said:

All films are art but “art films” are a specific genre with specific general characteristics.

That is like saying “Every car is a vehicle but the term “vehicle car” will from now on be used to describe only sports car”. It is simply stupid usage of term for what it is trying to define.

ray_afraid said:

imperialscum said:

ray_afraid said:

imperialscum said:

Disney is the only one making them and if they make shitty ones people end up without Star Wars.

That’s not true at all. I haven’t been crazy about Disney’s Starwars output, but I still have Star Wars.

if they make shitty ones people who want new Star Wars end up with shitty new Star Wars.

That’s true, but I just don’t see why one can’t be happy with what they already like. If they make more of that thing and you don’t like it, no big deal, you still have the ones you love. If they make more and you do like it, then it’s just a nice bonus.
Take what you like, leave what you don’t.
The franchise doesn’t owe you anything.

Well that is one way to look at it. The other way is that if they are making new films in ones favourite franchise, one has the right to be unhappy with shitty products and express it. After all lots of people around were doing so with PT (perhaps even you were one them?).