• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorRalph Kruhm
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007 edited
    To every heretic: Here are the three reasons why Howard Shore´s Lord of the Rings will still be remembered in 2057:

    #1: The Book - The books are out for over 50 years now and still loved by millions of readers. I guess it will still be loved by an equal or even bigger amount of people 50 years from now. And if they love the book, they will check out the movies and the music that was written for them. I play even Rosenman´s score for the animated movie at least once or twice a year, and how old is that one? There can be no doubt that people like me will be playing Shore´s work until we´re dead, and I know my daughter will continue to do that even after that day.

    #2: The Hobbit - Sooner or later, the prequel movie(s) will be made, and there is no doubt that WETA, some of the original cast and possibly Peter Jackson will be involved. Shore already mentioned he is toying with ideas for it, and who doubts that the oscar winning composer of the trilogy will be back for the prequel? Now The Hobbit may be a children´s book, but it has everything the trilogy had, plus a much more wicked sense of humour, the very epic battle of the Five Armies which, if done right, will be an event no movie-freak will ever forget, and then there is Smaug, probably the most bad-ass dragon ever. If Gandalf is the original wizard, Smaug is the original dragon. And young Bilbo will rock the house. This movie will probably make more money than every other movie ever did before, and there´s no chance in hell that its score will be forgotten. And if they really do the two-parter, we´ll get a complete five-part saga with one massive score. You bet it will last for eternity.

    #3: The score itself - Tell me about one score which had the treatment that this one had. The preparation time, the amount of artists involved, the variance of artists involved, the lenght of it, the many releases it got, including the wonderfully crafted Complete Recordings Editions, the symphony, the DVD(s - there will probably be more than one sooner or later), the book(s - ditto). Look at the chorals and the way they were created. Look at the themes, how they are growing during the three movies until they reach their final state in Part 3. Look at the Extended Editions and how they got a completely new score, which was unheard of before. Even if you don´t LIKE the music, it IS the most spectacular event in film music history, and again, there is no way it will be forgotten.

    Beside all that, this score is a beautyfully written, epic, wagnerian masterpiece perfectly suited for Middle-Earth, the book, and the movies. Its melodies are already embedded within the mind of millions of RINGers, they were moved to tears by it, they don´t visit those concerts for nothing. If you don´t like it, it´s your opinion and you are perfectly allowed to have it, beside the fact that I will do nothing to change it. Taste is taste. But to guess it will be forgotten soon is sheer ignorance in sight of overwhelming facts that speak totally against your guess.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    To every heretic


    <stepping up to the plate> biggrin

    #1: The Book


    Interestingly I would argue that the books are a strike against the film.
    It's such a well known piece of work and so very much a part of occidental cultural awareness that any derivate (and there have been many, from high-consiousness efforts such as Jackson's fine films to lowbrow nonsense like Leonard Nimoy singing the praises of Bilbo the Hobbit) is doomed to live in its shadow. It's always the books that will be the main reference and the main measure against which everything is held, and in that vein it's the books that will retain their immortality status. NOT the films or any other franchise element.

    #2: The Hobbit - Sooner or later, the prequel movie(s) will be made


    Yet again, I would argue that's a strike against it.
    The Hobbit as a book way back in the day was already a huge disappointment to many who were introduced to Tolkien's world through the sudden proliference of The Lord Of the Rings in the early sixties.
    Little did they know that The Hobbit, even though that started it all, was a childrens' book, and had little of the epic and literary power of the sequels.
    This (and there is very little doubt about it witness the (relative) failure of almost any prequel issues of any franchise, which , almost as a rule, will alienate the "hard core" fan base) will happen again with any prequel film, should it be made.
    Last I heard, Jackson was (wisely) very unwilling to take The Hobbit on board for exactly that reason. And even if (well, when. There's money in it. So it'll happen. slant ) the film were to go ahead, it will only serve to dilute the wealth of material that's already there.

    #3: The score itself


    While it's a fine score, the mere fact that it's been rerererererereissued in an evermore expanding Super Special Exclusive Separate Collector's Promo Singular Limited Edition doesn't really bode well. The lesson learned after the merchandise deluge that followed Lucas' The Phantom Menace collapsed was that, yes, it IS possible to oversaturate a market, even a relatively wealthy and compromising one.
    Within the space of five years, anything that anyone could ever want from Jackson's/Shore's vision has come to pass... and so, rather than "keeping the faith", we move on.

    As for the fact that Shore had a lot of time to prepare the scores: no argument whatsoever.
    But -as much as the amount of time spent is no indication whatsoever of actual quality (don't jump down my throat: the scores are wonderful. I'm just saying there is no causal connection)- it is also not an indication of how it will be reviewed and remembered in future.

    It's a lovely score, truly, but when we look at pop culture (or, if you're more Jungian inclined, the collective consciousness), we don't hear The Lord Of The Rings returning as the epitome of Fantasy. Rather, whenever watching a documentary, advertisement or other metaprogram where Fantasy is an issue, we generally hear Enya, Zimmer (yeah, weird!) or Conan!

    So there you have it: that's my analysis why Shore's work will not go down as a masterpiece, however fine the scores are. A masterpiece, to me anyway, is a work of art that will be remembered throughout the ages, and will serve as a measure against which future efforts will be judged.
    I simply don't see it happening.
    But again: I'm more than happy to wait 50 years to prove my point.
    I'm a patient man, and I was planning to live forever anyway. wink
    'I would have scored it with celesta and a soft pillow.' ~ Thor
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007
    Patiently awaiting Ralph's long reply although think it'll lead anywhere, with Martijn tongue

    Ralph, i think you saw my - much smaller and very less expanded post - over at the "Fighting room" thread, haven't you? wave
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007
    Christodoulides wrote
    Patiently awaiting Ralph's long reply although think it'll lead anywhere, with Martijn tongue


    What?
    confused
    I'm always willing to listen.... and then explain at length how very wrong you are.
    angelic

    Ralph, i think you saw my - much smaller and very less expanded post - over at the "Fighting room" thread, haven't you? wave


    Yeah, but you're agreeing with him, so where's the fun in that?
    'I would have scored it with celesta and a soft pillow.' ~ Thor
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007
    It's fun for him you fun-taker, party-spoiler! angry biggrin
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRalph Kruhm
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007 edited
    Well, I am not a fan of discussing for the sake of discussing. I feel uncomfortable when people don´t agree with me, especially in cases where I believe I´m right. wink I´m a guy who needs harmony in his life, my problem is there are a lot of things that make me nervous, and one of them are discussions where the other side continues a debate just because they think it´s fun. Seeing a full-length post with arguments that seemingly prove my theory being torn apart sentence-by-sentence with half-baken arguments which, IMHO, won´t hold a second against mine if tested by people with a better education and a better language than mine, makes me kind of angry, because this is just unneccessary work for me. Example: What Martijn wrote about my argument #1 is exactly what I meant. It will be the books that will hold up the banner for all time. But there can be no doubt that there will always be fans who want to look beyond the books. They will discover the games, the art, the movies, the music, including, of course, the score. It is quite obvious what I meant, and I see no point why Martijn tried to prove his point by actually proving mine. It is illogical argumentation like this that makes an intense discussion rather unnerving for me. I thought I made perfectly relevant statements. To see them being ripped apart just because of the interest in ripping them apart is nothing I want to be engaged in, as much as I love the score. Since I like you, Martijn, I must add that this is not against you, personally, but against the way of argumentation you use. just no interest in discussing for the sake of discussing, which is, of course, my problem, not yours, and I hope you can forgive this shortcoming of mine. You can easily "win" this by just answering to every post I make, because sooner or later, I will tire of this, but it won´t make any of your arguments more solid. wink

    So, I will continue a bit, but not for long.

    I already answered to #1.

    #2. There is NO indication whatsoever of Jackson not willing to do the Hobbit. He has a very full time-schedule, which might be the only reason to prevent him from doing it, but the sheer idea of him being afraid of the curse of the prequels is nonsense in my book. I would like to see a link please. And about that "children´s book" problem: If you´ve read it, you know that a lot of its childishness comes from the way the "narrator" talks to the reader, not from its story, which is as adventurous and dangerous as any event in LOTR. You have orks, you have giant spiders, you have Gollum, you have battles, you have bitter arguments, you have death, everything. And Jackson is not the kind of guy to play it safe. This movie would rock.

    #3. There is so much students and fans of film music can learn by analysing the score and how it came to pass, just because of the effort that went into it. The analysation of themes and development, the study of the use of language, the incorporation of actual book text into it, and so on. But I really don´t see the point in continuing here, if you don´t see this by yourself.

    Beside all that, the score is constantly referenced, used at background music or whatever. Why you don´t notice it, I don´t know.

    Regarding to the oversaturation, you´re right, it was a lot. But I don´t think it will work against it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007


    #3. There is so much students and fans of film music can learn by analysing the score and how it came to pass, just because of the effort that went into it. The analysation of themes and development, the study of the use of language, the incorporation of actual book text into it, and so on. But I really don´t see the point in continuing here, if you don´t see this by yourself.



    That is very true. I've been doing some fun analyzing of parts in the LOTR trilogy with some colleagues in the past and you wouldn't believe how advanced, complex and dense it is compared to the "average good score", especially the instrumental soli and the awesome choir work. I tell you, that trilogy has UNTHINKABLY HUGE amounts of work and musicianship in it - particularly the 2nd score which is by far the most complex and darkest of the 3 - and that's why it drives me crazy to read negative stuff about its musical side. I don't have the knowledge nor time and will to add to the rest of the points made, film / pop culture-wise and all, but i can guarantee you that musically, it's a masterpiece. As simple as that.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007 edited
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    Example: What Martijn wrote about my argument #1 is exactly what I meant. It will be the books that will hold up the banner for all time.


    Then I'm sorry to say you it seems as if you haven't read my point as well as I've read yours.

    You are quite right in saying we both stress the same starting point: the books will survive the test of time.

    But it's in the conclusions where we part company:
    I take your point to mean that there will always be fans looking beyond the books.
    I'm sure there will be, but MY point is that that single issue is not enough to guarantuee any continuing status for Shore's work: in fifty years time (so my point goes), when faced with the concept of The Lord Of The Rings, 99.999% of people will associate it with the books.
    And yes, there may be one or two collectors oif the odd and curious out there who will remember that at one time there was a film. And maybe one of those will remember who wrote the score.

    Now unless that is enough for you to support the thesis that Shore's score "will be remembered in 50 years time", we are not saying the same thing at all!
    In fact we're coming to vastly different conclusions.

    Again: if the fact that there will be a very small niche of collectors that remembers Shore in fifty years time indeed is indeed enough for you to justify the rememberance point, than fair enough. We agree (or at least it's not something I'm arguing against).

    But my assumption was that you meant that the scores would gain some sort of classic status, well known and referenced throughout history and culture.
    This I do NOT believe will come to pass.
    That's the difference.

    Which makes neither my or your point or argument incorrect or indeed "illogical".

    (Hobbit) If you´ve read it, you know that a lot of its childishness comes from the way the "narrator" talks to the reader, not from its story, which is as adventurous and dangerous as any event in LOTR.


    I'm not sure what your point is here.
    It IS a children's book.
    It's not just an opinion: Tolkien wrote it to read to his children at night. He stated clearly it's a children's story. I believe it's even in the preface. Why would you argue against that? confused
    I'm sure you could rewrite it (or as a film rescript it) to become more mature, but that in no way negates its origins. And that's where the first hurdle would be: you alienate the book fans by making it more adult or the film fans by staying true to its nature.

    That said, the fact that New Line was talking about another prequel film as well to bridge The Hobbit and The Lord Of the Rings would probably make the last book fans run for cover as well.

    You're quite right that Jackson wasn't shying away from making the film though: that was an assumption I made based upon several sources which didn't pan out in the end. In fact, Jackson was keen to get on with it, but has been fired from the project due to legal wrangling (something, incidentally, that also doesn't bode well for any future projects slant )


    #3. There is so much students and fans of film music can learn


    I'm sorry mate, but that's not a fact, that's an opinion.
    Maybe you're right.
    Maybe they CAN learn.
    But at this time they're not actually DOING it! This is not required material at any conservatory, and there has been no composer yet publicly stating to have studied Shore's material.

    Beside all that, the score is constantly referenced, used at background music or whatever. Why you don´t notice it, I don´t know.


    Hmmm, well, I can only say that outside of its context (i.e. anything Rings-related), *I* myself haven't heard it used yet. Sadly, as we live in different countries, it would probably be impossible for you to point me towards any sources I would know/be able to access that do reference it?

    wave
    'I would have scored it with celesta and a soft pillow.' ~ Thor
  1. I just wanted to add that I really don´t want to look like an ass. I just hate huge discussions which is why I did not react to the whole LOTR discussion immediately, but since it didn´t go away and I love those scores dearly, I couldn´t stand it any longer and had to say something, creating the Shore thread BTW. I just wanted to create something that could end the discussion in an easy way, saying LOTR won´t go away based on real arguments instead of pure matters of taste, buit it didn´t work the way I thought. Well, at least it can be a base for further discussion if you´re interested, like Demetris just did (Thanks, BTW; that was a very interesting piece of information). As I´ve said before, please continue to discuss,; it´s just that I won´t be the one leading the discussion for long.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007
    Maybe they CAN learn.
    But at this time they're not actually DOING it!


    ...except for Demetris, obviously! biggrin
    'I would have scored it with celesta and a soft pillow.' ~ Thor
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    I just wanted to add that I really don´t want to look like an ass. I just hate huge discussions which is why I did not react to the whole LOTR discussion immediately, but since it didn´t go away and I love those scores dearly, I couldn´t stand it any longer and had to say something, creating the Shore thread BTW.


    No worries, mate.
    While an argument is something where you would try and convince the other party of their mistake, a discussion may easily have as a final point a mutual understanding of issues and convictions, rather than a commonality or agreement.

    All I'm trying to do is bringing in counterpoints supporting my theory.
    It's neither to undermine your opinions or appreciation of something you obviously hold dear, but it IS to try and find that common ground of acceptance and logic, where points may be debated on their merit. That that is something that makes some uncomfortable is also not a shame: it happens.
    However, this is a discussion board where not only facts but also opinions are measured against each other: it's the nature of the beast. And yeah, that may be very uncomfortable as well, I'm well aware. smile
    'I would have scored it with celesta and a soft pillow.' ~ Thor
  2. 1. I think it will be known to more people than just a few collectors. Maybe not as big as Rosza or Hermann or Korngold are referred to these days, but not too much below that. It may not be referenced like Star wars, but that may be due to the cultural status of Star wars, not based on the actual quality.

    2. The Hobbit is called a children´s book because it is told like a children´s book. The adventure it describes, though, most certainly is not. Take away the narrator´s voice, and you get a story that can be very frightening at times to children. This is what I meant when I said it will be not too different to the LOTR movies, but seem more a part of them. Remember, I said that to argue against your point that the Hobbit movie might be too different from the trilogy and so alienate the viewers. You may be right that it might alienate the readers if told in the trilogy´s style, but there are always people who are alienated by something. The masses, though, would love it, I´m sure of that.

    The matter of the financial argument between New Line and Jackson is currently being settled, if I´m not mistaken. The rather harsh statements of NL boss Shaye have already been harmonized by phrases of mutual respect, blah blah... there will be an announcement about the Hobbit some time in 2008, I´m sure of it.

    3. Well, if the industry decides to ignore the opportunity to study this score, they are dumb and you are right. My loss, I´m afraid.

    4. Sadly, no, I don´t have any reference at hand. But if I encounter one, I will tell you immediately, should this discussion still be running. spin

    BTW, I´m glad you´re not taken aback by my whining. I´ll do the best I can to discuss this further.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007 edited
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    1. I think it will be known to more people than just a few collectors. Maybe not as big as Rosza or Hermann or Korngold are referred to these days, but not too much below that. It may not be referenced like Star wars, but that may be due to the cultural status of Star wars, not based on the actual quality.


    A very valid point.
    So basically we would be hoping that the inherent quality of the scores would be enough to sustain its longevity. I am more pessimistic than you in that respect (as you may have surmised), as I think cultural status is more of a marker than quality is (which is a pretty bleak point in and of itself slant ), but that outcome indeed is something that simply will have to be judged by the passing of time.

    2. The Hobbit is called a children´s book because it is told like a children´s book. The adventure it describes, though, most certainly is not. Take away the narrator´s voice, and you get a story that can be very frightening at times to children.


    Hell yeah!
    I remember vividly having some very rough nights after reading the Wargs scene (where they have to hide in the trees). That mental image has kept me up for hours. Horrifying stuff!

    Remember, I said that to argue against your point that the Hobbit movie might be too different from the trilogy and so alienate the viewers. You may be right that it might alienate the readers if told in the trilogy´s style, but there are always people who are alienated by something. The masses, though, would love it, I´m sure of that.


    Again: valid points, but I do still wonder what any prequel would do for the status of the films.
    Wouldn't it feel like going to the well once too often?
    After all, we've now seen what Middle Earth looks like...what could possibly add to that.
    We have of course a cautionary example in Lucas' prequel Star Wars films which, in general opinion, has not done much to enhance the "magic" of Star Wars. It's made money, sure, but the only reason it hasn't damaged the nigh-mythical status of the Original Trilogy is because that had been out there for twenty years: plenty of time to reach an unassailable status.

    The matter of the financial argument between New Line and Jackson is currently being settled, if I´m not mistaken.


    Hmmm, didn't it have more to do with different copyright holders?
    I must admit to not having followed this too clsoely so I might be completely off, but if that's the case, any compromise is going to be very dodgy indeed. sad

    3. Well, if the industry decides to ignore the opportunity to study this score, they are dumb


    biggrin
    Fair enough.

    4. Sadly, no, I don´t have any reference at hand. But if I encounter one, I will tell you immediately, should this discussion still be running. spin


    As long as the board is up, I'll be here. smile
    'I would have scored it with celesta and a soft pillow.' ~ Thor
    •  
      CommentAuthorNautilus
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007
    Wow....this Posts are almost so long to read than hear the 4 cd's.

    You know My opinion about this saga of Scores. They has good themes, and some highly effective and beautiful vocal stuff (the solists, not the over the top loud chorus). But it's very short in the orchestral palete (Even If it's because his Wagnerian Style), and the Highlights are pasted in the middle of very uninspired and boring string and horns progressions.

    If I want to listen a trilogy I'll take star Wars, If I want to listen a fantasy score I listen Secret of Nimh, If I want listen Sword and Sorcery I listen Willor or Conan.

    I only have to say One thing: I only hope be still here in 2057 for fight agains LOTR fans.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007
    Nautilus wrote
    Wow....this Posts are almost so long to read than hear the 4 cd's.


    But they're far more interesting. wink
    'I would have scored it with celesta and a soft pillow.' ~ Thor
    •  
      CommentAuthorNautilus
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007
    Martijn wrote
    Nautilus wrote
    Wow....this Posts are almost so long to read than hear the 4 cd's.


    But they're far more interesting. wink


    beer
  3. Martijn wrote
    Nautilus wrote
    Wow....this Posts are almost so long to read than hear the 4 cd's.


    But they're far more interesting. wink

    Bastards. wink
  4. Nautilus wrote
    If I want to listen a trilogy I'll take star Wars, If I want to listen a fantasy score I listen Secret of Nimh, If I want listen Sword and Sorcery I listen Willor or Conan.


    If I want to listen to something that has defined Middle Earth for me musically, I know where I will turn to. That´s one of the more important points: LOTR is not your usual sword and sorcery fantasy, it is a deeply mythological epic whose massive weight needs a score that is able to carry it. LOTR would have been ridiculously underscored by a standard fanrasy or sword and sorcery score.
  5. Martijn wrote
    that outcome indeed is something that simply will have to be judged by the passing of time.

    Agreed, as sad as this is.

    Hell yeah!
    I remember vividly having some very rough nights after reading the Wargs scene (where they have to hide in the trees). That mental image has kept me up for hours. Horrifying stuff!

    So we agree on that matter.

    After all, we've now seen what Middle Earth looks like...what could possibly add to that.
    We have of course a cautionary example in Lucas' prequel Star Wars films which, in general opinion, has not done much to enhance the "magic" of Star Wars. It's made money, sure, but the only reason it hasn't damaged the nigh-mythical status of the Original Trilogy is because that had been out there for twenty years: plenty of time to reach an unassailable status.

    I think one of the main reasons for failure was that the prequels were too different from the original in almost every aspect. A soon to be realised Hobbit movie would be a totally different matter. I agree that people wouldn´t see too much new stuff, but I think they would like to return to the world they´ve come to love. You may be right that it´s too much of the same, but every TV-series has that problem, and many of them are doing just fine. smile

    Hmmm, didn't it have more to do with different copyright holders?

    new Line has to start the movie next year or they will loose the rights. They know Peter is the only one to do that stunt in that time-frame, so they want him. The guy who would get the rights back after next year has already said he would give it to Peter. So Jackson will do it this or that way. wink
    •  
      CommentAuthorNautilus
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007 edited
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    Nautilus wrote
    If I want to listen a trilogy I'll take star Wars, If I want to listen a fantasy score I listen Secret of Nimh, If I want listen Sword and Sorcery I listen Willor or Conan.


    If I want listen to something that has defined Middle Earth for me musically, I know where I will turn to. That´s one of the more important points: LOTR is not your usual sword and sorcery fantasy, it is a deeply mythological epic whose massive weight needs a score that is able to carry it. LOTR would have been ridiculously underscored by a standard fanrasy or sword and sorcery score.


    If I want listen music that sounds like the middle earth, from a trilogy directed by a newzeland director and with a Goonie as a main character I choose Shore's Lord Of the RIngs too. moon

    About the movie....Im really amazed in how Jackson did a so BIG (in the good meaning) movie with only 90 million of dollars, and How He adapted a so large books, But I think in 9 hours of movie the chracters are not devoloped and all the relationships are cold as hell. Dammed, You have to go to 1 minute from Return OF the King extended version to finally have some love story.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007
    Martijn wrote
    Maybe they CAN learn.
    But at this time they're not actually DOING it!


    ...except for Demetris, obviously! biggrin


    In fact i am pretty convinced that the scores are studied (at least parts of them) in film music courses in the US. Not to mention that parts of them are already in the repertoire of various orchestras, mostly smaller ones. And i happen to know of 2 that come in mind now and are Thessaloniki-based; i have even been to such a concert last year and was present at the rehearsals as well. I can't tell you how excited the conductor was about them playing portions from the LOTR scores and the work in general when he was presenting it for the first time to the orchestra, as sheet music and was doing the necessary introductions for the piece they were to perform. The man's also a university teacher at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and a great musician himself.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
  6. If you really want to talk about the quality of the movies now, you´ll have to do that all by yourself.

    And right now I feel rather stupid that I ever chose to react to your LOTR vs. Star Wars ridiculousness.
    •  
      CommentAuthorNautilus
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    If you really want to talk about the quality of the movies now, you´ll have to do that all by yourself.

    And right now I feel rather stupid that I ever chose to react to your LOTR vs. Star Wars ridiculousness.


    Are you talking with me?
  7. Ehm, yes I am. I missed the second page.
    •  
      CommentAuthorNautilus
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    Ehm, yes I am. I missed the second page.


    Sad to read that. Only siths deal with absolutes tongue

    I mean, you think it's stupid my opion about LOTR because you think it's a fact LOTR is good.You even can deal with the contrary. I understand you, but the things are never black or white (Look Michael Jackson for example). wink

    Since Star Wars and LOTR are the two most popular sagas in the whole history, I don't find stupid compare them.

    Anyway, like you I think it's a useless discussion. beer
    •  
      CommentAuthorRalph Kruhm
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007 edited
    The problem is that I already had this LOTR movie discussion a thousand times I think.

    Of course it´s never black and white, but when I see a movie, I do it to be entertained. So I watch it and look out for its entertainment values. Usually I find some in almost every movie. I dig into them, enjoy them and come out of the theatre having had a nice couple of hours. At least until I start to notice the usual bunch of people around me who try to tell me "ah, what a bad actor", "ah, those effects were shit" and "ah, the book was much better". Wherever I go, I feel surrounded by people who always look for the worst in a movie to be able to rip it apart and show how smart-ass they are. Sure, the quality in movies has sunk, but maybe it is because Hollywood knows we´ll butcher their movies anyway, regardless how good or bad they are. And whenever I tell that to people, they look at me with that sad expression that tells me what they think about my inability to see how BAD everything is.

    I´ve had LOADs of discussions of this kind about LOTR because everybody around me felt entitled to his own small part in finding something about it that sucked, totally ignorant of the fact how much was about it that was glorious filmmaking. The whole design work, the costumes, the weapons, the architecture, there is so much that is so absolutely stunningly perfect in this movie that it is worth every cent of my money singlehandedly.

    As a matter of fact, it might be those three years of discussions that have worn me out with discussing. Of course LOTR is not perfect. I don´t know any movie that is. But why yell about some shortcomings, if you get so much else you could cheer about instead? I´ll never going to understand that kind of attitude.

    I´m sorry, Nautilus, but I´m tired of discussing it, and it has actually, for once, nothing to do with you.

    Cheers. beer
    •  
      CommentAuthorScribe
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007
    Nautilus wrote
    About the movie....Im really amazed in how Jackson did a so BIG (in the good meaning) movie with only 90 million of dollars, and How He adapted a so large books, But I think in 9 hours of movie the chracters are not devoloped and all the relationships are cold as hell. Dammed, You have to go to 1 minute from Return OF the King extended version to finally have some love story.


    That's because the books don't have character development either. There's actually MORE romance in the films than there are in the books.

    I have only one thing to say regarding the "will LotR scores stand the test of time" question. From my observations of the average person who knows little to nothing about film scores, it used to be film scores = Star Wars / John Williams. Now it seems to be more film scores = Lord of the Rings (or occasionally film scores = Pirates of the Caribbean shocked )
    I love you all. Never change. Well, unless you want to!
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007
    Christodoulides wrote
    In fact i am pretty convinced that the scores are studied (at least parts of them) in film music courses in the US. Not to mention that parts of them are already in the repertoire of various orchestras


    Now THAT is fascinating information!
    Do tell me more! What sort of concerts are these? Are the themes indeed seeping into the public consciousness? Things like The Good, The Bad And The Ugly or The Pink Panther have been staples of orchestral public sweethearts ever since the dawn of time. It would be fantastic to find The Lord Of The Rings entering that select company (in fact that right there is a fantastic way of creating public goodwill and increased awareness of it!).

    Nautilus wrote
    Sad to read that. Only siths deal with absolutes tongue
    ... I understand you, but the things are never black or white (Look Michael Jackson for example). wink


    biggrin biggrin biggrin
    Jordi, I'm so happy you're here.
    My day would be so dull without your posts!
    cow

    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    Wherever I go, I feel surrounded by people who always look for the worst in a movie to be able to rip it apart and show how smart-ass they are.


    I'll tell you the most bizarre criticism I've heard on these films (and I've seen them together with "book purists"-who hated it-, professional film/theatre people -who hated it for entirely different reasons- and musical professionals -who hated it for different reasons again- ): when I went to see Two Towers it was with a number of colleagues one of whom is a student of history and in fact holds an academic degree. When we came out -me being totally starry-eyed of course- I asked him what he thought and he said it was a load of bollocks.

    Of course I was flabbergasted. What was there not to like?
    "Well," he said, "Anyone who has the slightest inkling about military history and stratgey would have known that Helm's Deep was easily defensible from a higher position. It made no sense that the Orks attacked on an open plain, as plainly any tactician.."and on and on and on he went about military strategy, Patton and Caesar.
    Ever more incredulously I listened to him, and then he finished his lecture by exclaiming "it wasn't realistic at all!"
    He looked at me expectantly, as if waiting to be congratulated on his expertise.

    I looked back and said: "These were ELVES fighting ORKS. What sort of realism did you miss exactly?"

    Shut him up for the rest of the evening.
    biggrin
    'I would have scored it with celesta and a soft pillow.' ~ Thor
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2007 edited
    Heh!

    Martijn (and all),

    This year i watched two concerts by the Aristotle university symphony orchestra that were dedicated to film music, the 2nd one also through the rehearsals as well. They played suites from PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, LORD OF THE RINGS, THE MISSION and GLADIATOR (even parts from the battle as well!) and the resulting performances were ranging from reasonably good to very good. Most importantly, you could track the love for the material though, both from the conductor and orchestra's side but also in the audience. In detail, i remember those 2 very sympathetic old ladies sitting in front me who were excited when Gladiator came up, started clapping along with the melodic rhythm, shaking their heads along and even quietly humming at some parts (notably the admittedly irresistible "earth theme") ! When the piece was over and the audience was cheering, one turned to the other and told her "Oh i soo love this you have it?" and the other responded "Yes, i listen to it a lot. I hoped they played "Am i merciful?" too though!"

    Needless to say i was stunned, almost cried like a little baby!

    My own experiences have told me so far that people outside the film music medium are very open to the broad melodies and easily-accessible, direct nature of film music, when presented correctly to them and with care. You know, we might not attribute to film music what's fair and rightful 'cause we've got used to listening stuff like that but believe me when i say that its lyrical and deeply melodic, thematic-driven nature is something the averagely cultivated listener largely appreciates, especially when they learn it's about creations of today. Most of them are used to cheap pop noise in our days and are so amazed to actually learn that people write such music today. It's that they don't know about it most of the cases, ignorance is not bliss in this case and that's where we come in!

    Last year, for instance and although i have numerous examples, i'll just name one, i was asked by my dear cousin who's now a working civil engineer in Cyprus to built an audio visual presentation for the day he'd present the and get examined on his thesis. The thesis was about a digital representation of an ancient Byzantine church in the island of Crete, GREECE, which they went and captured with their laser scanners on location, passed the data through the software, created the 3d model (inside and outside) and dressed with texture as a whole, a very complicated and long process and they wanted music and video which would show the model in a sort of trip in an out of it and such. Anyway, i created in collaboration with them for the visuals (they provided 3d model video captures and all) a 5 (or so) minute widescreen video presentation out of Steve Jablonsky's GOLIATH (music for the Pearl Harbor trailer) and parts of Brian Tyler's Children of Dune. The result was admittedly very impressive so the examination committee and his teachers were stunned! They rated his work with an overall 10 out 10 and went on talking with me at the very next moment and for 5 minutes or so about the music! They characteristically asked, when the video was finished: "What music was that? It is gorgeous". After the discussion we had there, they all were absolutely stunned and all agreed to a sentiment of bitterness that circled around the "why didn't we know about it for so long?" base.

    The power and beauty of film music is enormous people. Don't underestimate it even for the slightest moment.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
  8. I've not caught up with what's been posted already, but it seems that there's plenty of interest in the complete version of The Return of The King as at least SAE has sold out and are awaiting another pressing.
    The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn