• Categories

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

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    Sunil wrote
    Thor,

    I am expecting normal release, not like The Lion King. It was merely disappointing release of Walt Disney. All i am expecting neat and good soundtrack presentation as like previous albums of John Williams. That's all


    Well, then we're talking the same language! However, we can't assume anything in advance. It COULD just be that there isn't much score at all in the film, and that the album MUST be padded out with whatever songs there are in it. Time will show.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSunil
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    Thor,

    At last, you have understood my language. biggrin
    Racism, Prejudices and discrimination exists everywhere.
  1. Timmer wrote
    I find CE3K overblown, longwinded and tedious, I'd be quite happy to never see the film again.

    The score on the other hand is pure magnificence, one of the all time great film scores without a doubt.


    You see I never understood that fact. How can you love not even like the film if you think the score is magnificent? So that means if you just listen to the music inside the film you basically feel nothing because the film is awful in your opinion, however just listening to the score is like a second coming of christ, on a pure emotional level. I could never do that, separate the music from the visuals, or story, or any other aspect of the film.

    Most of the films I love, have an equally brilliant score to accompany them. And sometimes I will like a mediocre film more, because it has a good score.

    I remember discovering early Spielbergs when I was a kid and Close Encounters was one of the most emotional, wondrous and magical films I had seen up to that point. I will always cherish the memories of wonder, awe and terror I had whenever I saw the film. The big alien at the end used to creep me out like you wouldn't believe. smile
    "considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G.
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    DreamTheater wrote
    Timmer wrote
    I find CE3K overblown, longwinded and tedious, I'd be quite happy to never see the film again.

    The score on the other hand is pure magnificence, one of the all time great film scores without a doubt.


    You see I never understood that fact. How can you love not even like the film if you think the score is magnificent?


    I think Jaws 2, 3, and 4 are steaming piles of shit... but the scores for those films are simply magnificent... especially 2. Also, while we are on the subject wasn't Monsigner a steamer as well but what Williams composed is right up there with some of the best scores he wrote around those times?

    I think there are many, many examples where the score works wonders (King Soloman's Mines - Supergirl) but the film came out of a dogs rectum.

    -Erik-
    host and producer of CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorDreamTheater
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009 edited
    But in the case of Close Encounters it isn't at all clear. I mean the movie has lots of brilliant touches and unique camera shots and at times unnerving, then uplifting ambience and great acting all-round. Not something you could say about King Solomon's Mines, Supergirl or the Jaws sequels, right?

    What is your stance on CE3K Erik, just out of curiosity?
    "considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G.
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    DreamTheater wrote
    But in the case of Close Encounters it isn't at all clear. I mean the movie has lots of brilliant touches and unique camera shots and at times unnerving, then uplifting ambience and great acting all-round. Not something you could say about King Solomon's Mines, Supergirl or the Jaws sequels, right?

    What is your stance on CE3K Erik, just out of curiosity?


    It's all subjective. I can see how someone could think that CEO3K is overblown, longwinded and tedious. Personally, I don't agree.

    -Erik-
    host and producer of CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    I said it was 'overblown, long winded and tedious', I don't think many people would argue with you Gilles that the film has many redeeming features.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    Erik Woods wrote
    DreamTheater wrote
    Timmer wrote
    I find CE3K overblown, longwinded and tedious, I'd be quite happy to never see the film again.

    The score on the other hand is pure magnificence, one of the all time great film scores without a doubt.


    You see I never understood that fact. How can you love not even like the film if you think the score is magnificent?


    I think Jaws 2, 3, and 4 are steaming piles of shit... but the scores for those films are simply magnificent... especially 2. Also, while we are on the subject wasn't Monsigner a steamer as well but what Williams composed is right up there with some of the best scores he wrote around those times?

    I think there are many, many examples where the score works wonders (King Soloman's Mines - Supergirl) but the film came out of a dogs rectum.

    -Erik-


    A very good point Erik, I would add Horner's magnificent KRULL.

    MONSIGNOR is a great example, I've heard about how bad the film is and have purposely never watched it especially so my enjoyment of Williams magnificent score is never tarnished.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009 edited
    DreamTheater wrote
    What is your stance on CE3K Erik, just out of curiosity?


    I think it's really, really good. The visuals are indeed STUNNING! The last 30 minutes is a visual feast. I do however find Dreyfus' character a bit odd. He is clearly insane and maybe that's why he does what he does (the gigantic sculpted mountain of dirt in his living room is a bit over board; BTW, didn't Spielberg cut this out of his 1980 Special Edition release?) I find myself questioning his motives. I mean, would ANY of us REALLY leave our families because of a vision? I don't like where Dreyfus' character goes during the last half of the film. Even Spielberg himself said that if he has made the film now then Dreyfus' character WOULDN'T have gone in the ship.

    Anyway, it's a film that I don't revisit too often but when I do I really enjoy it!

    -Erik-
    host and producer of CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009 edited
    Erik Woods wrote
    I find myself questioning his motives. I mean, would ANY of us REALLY leave our families because of a vision?


    While absolutely true, and I can certainly understand your motives for questioning the character's motives, it depends on who it appeals to I guess. For fear of being presumptuous and overly psychoanalytical, as a family man, you understandably put a negative spin on him entering the ship because he's leaving a family. As for me, at this point in my life I'm more concerned with discovery and new ideas and things like that and therefore he's arriving at exactly that.* So I've never really questioned the character's motives for going on board the ship and have never really had a problem with it (though next time I watch it, I will certainly think about it in a different way).

    *This is not say I think leaving one's family is a good idea, far from it, but for the sake of this particular film, I think my reasoning stands.
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    Steven wrote
    Erik Woods wrote
    I find myself questioning his motives. I mean, would ANY of us REALLY leave our families because of a vision?


    While absolutely true, and I can certainly understand your motives for questioning the character's motives, it depends on who it appeals to I guess. For fear of being presumptuous and overly psychoanalytical, as a family man, you understandably put a negative spin on him entering the ship because he's leaving a family. As for me, at this point in my life I'm more concerned with discovery and new ideas and things like that and therefore he's arriving at exactly that.* So I've never really questioned the character's motives for going on board the ship and have never really had a problem with it (though next time I watch it, I will certainly think about it in a different way).

    *This is not say I think leaving one's family is a good idea, far from it, but for the sake of this particular film, I think my reasoning stands.


    It actually has nothing to do with being a family man. When I first saw the film in my teens I still asked the same question... did he just alienate his entire family by throwing dirt in his living room and then chasing a "vision?"

    If it were me, I'd probably be just as obsessed but I probably would have included my family is some shape or form.

    -Erik-
    host and producer of CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    Fair enough. Still, our two distinct points of view on the character's motives does illuminate a certain difference of perspective. As I've said, I've never really looked at it from your perspective until now, so it probably means my sense of family is lacking. biggrin
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    I come from Steven's angle, too. In fact, the whole "family" thing didn't occur to me before I heard about the feelings Spielberg himself had about that.
    I am extremely serious.
  2. What did he say?
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorSouthall
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
  3. Interesting discussion. But wouldn't you agree that Roy Neary felt so alienated from his family, his kids never listening to him, having fights all the time with his estranged wife, that he'd rather pursue his obsession (a wonderful one at that) than try to repair his broken family? And the Loughlin character said it himself. He and many others were compelled to do all those things, complete irrational behavior. You know, people do the strangest things, even in movies. cheesy
    "considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G.
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    ^
    To a certain point I agree with this... but what I would have liked is some sort of realization from Neary that he had given up his family for this obsession without second thought. Was he looking for a way out of his marriage and was this the "excuse" he needed? Families fight all the time and I didn't really see any sort of dysfunction as we did in E.T. I don't like the simple fact that he just got up and left without thinking twice about the consequences.

    -Erik-
    host and producer of CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    Erik Woods wrote
    ^
    To a certain point I agree with this... but what I would have liked is some sort of realization from Neary that he had given up his family for this obsession without second thought. Was he looking for a way out of his marriage and was this the "excuse" he needed? Families fight all the time and I didn't really see any sort of dysfunction as we did in E.T. I don't like the simple fact that he just got up and left without thinking twice about the consequences.

    -Erik-


    Actually, I think that is what makes it so powerful.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    Erik's quite right. That's the thing: the focus on the Neary's mania doesn't really gel with the film's ultimate positive message.
    If this had been a setting and story more reminiscent of Requiem For A Dream or Pi, such (self-)destructive behaviour would have made a lot more sense.

    I saw Close Encounters Of The 3rd Kind first when I was 12, and even then that jarring behaviour confused me.

    There are a lot of beautiful scenes in Close Encounters Of The 3rd Kind (esepcially visually) and some extremely effective and iconic ones (the brief India scene: "Where did the sounds come from?", and of course the abduction scene), but I would not revisit this film often either for much the same reason Timmer already stated.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    I really disagree with that. There's MORE than enough justification for his actions from a purely narrative sense. You may disagree with it, morally, but to me, the REAL power is going against traditional family values and in fact forsaking any earthly obligations for "enlightenment". There's almost something Biblical about that.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    Thor wrote
    I really disagree with that. There's MORE than enough justification for his actions from a purely narrative sense.


    Yes!

    You may disagree with it, morally, but to me, the REAL power is going against traditional family values and in fact forsaking any earthly obligations for "enlightenment".


    YES!

    There's almost something Biblical about that.


    Oh, you lost me.


    ...where's that TV guide?
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    Thor wrote
    I really disagree with that. There's MORE than enough justification for his actions from a purely narrative sense. You may disagree with it, morally, but to me, the REAL power is going against traditional family values and in fact forsaking any earthly obligations for "enlightenment". There's almost something Biblical about that.


    Well, then Neary is an asshole and a deadbeat father.

    -Erik-
    host and producer of CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    Erik Woods wrote
    Thor wrote
    I really disagree with that. There's MORE than enough justification for his actions from a purely narrative sense. You may disagree with it, morally, but to me, the REAL power is going against traditional family values and in fact forsaking any earthly obligations for "enlightenment". There's almost something Biblical about that.


    Well, then Neary is an asshole and a deadbeat father.

    -Erik-


    That may be so. That's the price he - and his family - pays.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009 edited
    Thor wrote
    Erik Woods wrote
    Thor wrote
    I really disagree with that. There's MORE than enough justification for his actions from a purely narrative sense. You may disagree with it, morally, but to me, the REAL power is going against traditional family values and in fact forsaking any earthly obligations for "enlightenment". There's almost something Biblical about that.


    Well, then Neary is an asshole and a deadbeat father.

    -Erik-


    That may be so. That's the price he - and his family - pays.


    And I high doubt that's what Spielberg was going for.... and with that in mind makes it LESS powerful!

    -Erik-
    host and producer of CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009 edited
    Erik Woods wrote

    And I high doubt that's what Spielberg was going for.

    -Erik-


    I don't think he really knew WHAT he was going for at the time, as a child-free eternal optimist. It is only in later years that he has expressed regret in that ending, much due to his own parenthood (as with the whole walkie talkie thing from E.T., which is another stupid thing, IMO).

    The film still stands as it does, though, and speaks for itself. Morally wrong or not, I think it is FAR, FAR more powerful than if he did a 180 and returned to his family as a "better man" or something.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    Agree, but there's no reason in my mind -like Erik suggested as well- that he should not have involved his family.
    Right now, narratively speaking, he just shuts down...which isn't very interesting at all to me as a viewer (those interminable "if you build it" sequences are very boring).
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2009
    Thor wrote
    The film still stands as it does, though, and speaks for itself. Morally wrong or not, I think it is FAR, FAR more powerful than if he did a 180 and returned to his family as a "better man" or something.


    You are COMPLETELY missing my point! I don't mind that he went into the ship it was the fact that he didn't ONCE think about the family that he was leaving or consequence of his actions. If there was at least a brief moment where there was some realization of what he was about to do and how it would affect the people in his life then I would be fine with the rest. But his mindless abandonment of his family just doesn't gel with me. Neary turns into an unlikeable jerk!

    -Erik-
    host and producer of CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 20th 2009 edited
    But you guys are missing one crucial narrative component, namely his "transitional family", as I like to call it, i.e. Jillian and Barry, his temporary wife and kid (especially Jillian). He finds in them what he can't find in his own family, namely the mutual dedication for the "project". They become the natural stepping stone away from his own family; away from society; away from any earthly obligations. That doesn't make it any more right or wrong, but - in addition to his increased obsession - makes for a proper narrative justification for the act.

    As he enters the spaceship, the audience is probably torn between an envy and curiousity for what he might experience ("a new step for mankind", in a way) and a bittersweet sensation of "but will he ever return?". That's the only way the film can go out with a bang and not a whimper. It's what the film has been building towards.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeAug 20th 2009
    Thor wrote
    But you guys are missing one crucial narrative component, namely his "transitional family", as I like to call it, i.e. Jillian and Barry, his temporary wife and kid (especially Jillian).


    And that makes his actions even more deplorable. There is no justification for just dumping your family. None what so ever!

    -Erik-
    host and producer of CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 20th 2009
    Erik Woods wrote
    Thor wrote
    But you guys are missing one crucial narrative component, namely his "transitional family", as I like to call it, i.e. Jillian and Barry, his temporary wife and kid (especially Jillian).


    And that makes his actions even more deplorable. There is no justification for just dumping your family. None what so ever!

    -Erik-


    Again, Erik, I do not disagree with you so much in the moral implications of the act in itself, as I applaud it for its power. To forsake your family is a serious matter, even if it means enlightenment and a step further for the entire human race. It's the whole Abraham and Isaac story that we know so well.
    I am extremely serious.