> I both Dune and Solo can have a long write up, but I disagree that Dune
> doesn't deserve a long write up.

My point was not that it doesn't deserve a long write-up, but that it's virtually guaranteed to get one because it's by Zimmer, unlike other scores that are just as interesting in terms of their conception and production.

> It was Zimmer's second Oscar.

And yet we've seen nowhere near the same level of analysis of other recent Oscar winners (including Black Panther, which I mentioned).

> Dune is a critically acclaim movie that has a sequel coming up.

There are many, many films that meet this criteria and don't get the same level of attention.

> Zimmer made a lot of comments about the scoring process so it makes sense to compare it to the end result.

Yes, I mentioned in my post that because Zimmer does a lot of PR about his scores, there is more available and relevant information to enable deeper analysis. It's unfortunate we don't have more on other scores.

> Also, Dune is an interesting score to write up because of how
> polarizing it is. IFMCA nominated for score of year, but Filmtracks and
> some users absolutely hates the score. That is what makes a great write
> up.

As I said, I think polarization is too often a primary reason Zimmer's scores get this level of attention, and I also think the polarization is an overblown product of the hype machine and reputation Zimmer has cultivated for himself, rather than a true reflection of what's happening in the music/film.

> From lasting impact perspective, Solo doesn't deserve a long write up. The
> movie was a failure. People probably already forgotten about its
> existence. The score was popular among film music circles only.

I think maybe you missed the whole point of my post? Which is that Zimmer scores dominate film score discourse and get the greatest amount and depth of analysis because he's the most popular and influential composer alive - which, like I said, 'makes sense' - and it often feels like the music itself doesn't earn that in comparison to scores that have as or more interesting stories behind them. Solo's worthiness for critical analysis has nothing to do with its box office performance or legacy - it's purely because of what a unique artifact it is as a film score, and the process that led to its creation.

> In short, I think are multiple variables that make for an interesting
> write up beyond what you think the quality is.

I explicitly said all of that in my post, including that this has nothing to do with the quality of any of the scores in discussion. I also said Jon's write-up was in fact a great analysis and read. My point, again, is that although Zimmer's scores, in terms of music and creative process, don't deserve that depth of analysis any more than many other scores, they most often are the ones that get it (because of all the factors you and I both mentioned), and that's a shame.