Categories
Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
MICHAEL GIACCHINO
-
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015 edited
Captain Future wrote
The score certainly feels more like a symphony than a film score. The pre-film-scoring method (a la Morricone) would explain that.
I really wish this method would be used more often. It produces such intelligent, well-structured, symphonic music.I love you all. Never change. Well, unless you want to! -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015 edited
Ralph Kruhm wrote
Well, as I've heard it, Warner went to the Wachowskis to write and invent a completely new universe for them to build a franchise from. I don't think you could call that a job many would decline. The chance to create something new and be asured that Warner wants to make a big thing out of it? Beside the obvious pressure of the sheer immensity of the project that could interfere with your creativity, isn't that what many writers aspire to, something own and original, big and good, that a big studio wants to build a franchise from? Doesn't sound like the worst deal ever to me.
I didn't mean to imply anything against the Wachowskis or Giacchino for accepting the project. If there was ire in my words it is directed at Warner for continuously putting out cynical, negative crap that appeals first and foremost to the darker and baser parts of human nature. I don't have any affection for studio executives who could choose to support projects that inspire kids to dream towards and build for a better, more beautiful, and more compassionate future and instead choose to make dark, drab, depressing dystopias like the later Harry Potters (in which Warner had more control over the written story than most people are aware), Man of Steel, or Jupiter Ascending; not that those are the only examples at all. Warner is hardly unique for this in Hollywood but they are rather better at it than most other big studios. So it was unsurprising but offensive to me that a new big-budget sci-fi franchise comes along, a rare thing these days, and all we get is creepy reptilian aliens farming humans for their blood and a pair of extremely monotone actors role-playing utterly unconvincing "good guys" who are selected for their genetics rather than the quality of their spirits (yes, oversimplification). Where is the wonder and the beauty and the science-can-lead-to-a-Star-Trek-utopia? Okay, I'll shut up now before I sound completely insane...oh wait...I love you all. Never change. Well, unless you want to! -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
I can see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree.
I can't emphasize enough how important it is to awaken people's awareness to the fact of human greed, and that it is the driving force behind everything that's happening out there. Everything.
And there is already way too much stuff out there on our TVs and in theatres that's just meant to divert the masses' attention from the stuff that's really going on. -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
Very true Ralph, VERY true! -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
He has one point, though, which is that we're in desperate need for some uplifting stuff that will help us focus on how to make the future a promising, better place, stuff to inspire our children. So I'm not saying we don't need that. Actually, we need both, and this is were stuff like Harry Potter comes in. It not only tells you what's wrong with people, it shows you how to stand up for your dreams, for the weak, to fight for a better and more promising future. I believe children who got their moral compass from the Potter books will be doing okay.
There's nothing wrong with showing something positive and inspiring, but you also need a reminder that a bright future will not happen all by itself, especially not if you think you can get it without dealing with the bad influences first.
That's the bigger problem with the entertainment industry out there, especially that for the masses. It tells you to follow your dreams and to have a happy live and all that, but totally neglects to mention that you are not going to get it that easy, because there will always be people who will take it from you for a dime. -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
Ralph Kruhm wrote
He has one point, though, which is that we're in desperate need for some uplifting stuff that will help us focus on how to make the future a promising, better place, stuff to inspire our children.
Yes, it's called science. -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
Science in itself does not have any ethical dimension. Knowledge for the sake of kowledge is worthless. It needs a humanistic addendum. Carl Sagan and Gene Roddenberry knew that.Bach's music is vibrant and inspired. -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015 edited
Captain Future wrote
Science in itself does not have any ethical dimension.
Science helps us to inform ethics and morality, so I would say it most certainly does.
Knowledge for the sake of kowledge is worthless.
Bollocks.
It needs a humanistic addendum. Carl Sagan and Gene Roddenberry knew that.
Science needs good communicators, like Sagan, and sometimes that can come in the form of fiction. But science is innately human from the start, it's there because we as humans want -and need- to learn more about nature. Your implication that "science" is anything less than this reveals a rather pessimistic view of it. -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015 edited
Steven wrote
Ralph Kruhm wrote
He has one point, though, which is that we're in desperate need for some uplifting stuff that will help us focus on how to make the future a promising, better place, stuff to inspire our children.
Yes, it's called science.
Now that's a totally uncalled for snap. I was born in 1968. I grew up with the absolute certainty that we would colonize the moon before the year 2000 and go to Mars long before that. I love science and dug myself deep into books about space and its exploration, enjoyed to study a multitude of designs for orbital stations, platforms, rings, tubes, and elevators. I was a big fan of SciFi in all its forms and was absolutely sure that one day, we would overcome all our problems, get to know our alien neighbours and build a peaceful federation.
Then real life happened. It took me a long time to realise that all those things are not only - if ever - in the farthest of futures, but will most certainly never happen, because of the utter and ultimate truth:
Yes, Science could be used (and sometimes is) for the most wonderful things, but it will also always be twisted, abused, and raped by Human Greed. Science will always be used to make human lives more miserable than they've ever been before.
Science is not the solution. It certainly doesn't have to be a problem. But science will not help you against the people who abuse it to get your money, your life, your soul. -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
This! (What Ralph said.)
Ethis is not grounded in the natural order of things. Ethics are grounded in culture, not nature. The very idea of evolutionary ethics is a naturalistic fallacy.Bach's music is vibrant and inspired. -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015 edited
Look, I'm all for that positive view of the future to give our kids something to believe in and to work towards. And the more people share those dreams and want to make it happen, the higher the probability that one day, they could become real. Many aspects of that awesome future of the seventies have already happened, most of all the technological advances we were eager to get, like personal computers, and cell phones, and giant TV screens, but also a lot of medical advances, and all kinds of stuff. But all of that is also abused for the lowest of reasons. We are spied upon by authorities using the very same tech we adore so much, we have wonderful medicine that is only available to the privileged. We use a technology that poisons our soil to power up the fuel expensive vehicles of the rich. We produce gen-manipulated corn to force our farmers to buy a certain kind of pesticide. We drain all the water from the wells of poor communities to sell them their very own water in bottles.
And if, one day, we only need to crush little children into small energy cells to power our beautiful warp drive ships, be rest asured that we will. -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
Ralph Kruhm wrote
Steven wrote
Ralph Kruhm wrote
He has one point, though, which is that we're in desperate need for some uplifting stuff that will help us focus on how to make the future a promising, better place, stuff to inspire our children.
Yes, it's called science.
Now that's a totally uncalled for snap.
Certainly wasn't meant as a snap.
I was born in 1968. I grew up with the absolute certainty that we would colonize the moon before the year 2000 and go to Mars long before that. I love science and dug myself deep into books about space and its exploration, enjoyed to study a multitude of designs for orbital stations, platforms, rings, tubes, and elevators. I was a big fan of SciFi in all its forms and was absolutely sure that one day, we would overcome all our problems, get to know our alien neighbours and build a peaceful federation.
Then real life happened. It took me a long time to realise that all those things are not only - if ever - in the farthest of futures, but will most certainly never happen, because of the utter and ultimate truth:
If your experience of science is largely through fiction, then there's little wonder you're disappointed.
Yes, Science could be used (and sometimes is) for the most wonderful things, but it will also always be twisted, abused, and raped by Human Greed. Science will always be used to make human lives more miserable than they've ever been before.
If your point is that people can be assholes, I certainly agree.
Science is not the solution.
Depends on the problem. Though for many of them, it most certainly is.
It certainly doesn't have to be a problem.
Indeed.
But science will not help you against the people who abuse it to get your money, your life, your soul.
So I can't use science against people who use science for bad? Hmm. I suppose I better stop referring people to the evidence when an anti-vax nut job starts spouting rubbish. -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
BTW, can we just appreciate the fact that Jupiter Ascending is so unrelevant that it just ignited a little discussion about positive thinking, education, and the role of science in it?
Not bad at all, for a total failure as a movie, I think. -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
Captain Future wrote
This! (What Ralph said.)
Ethis is not grounded in the natural order of things. Ethics are grounded in culture, not nature. The very idea of evolutionary ethics is a naturalistic fallacy.
This sounds precariously close to relativism, which is nonsense.
'Science' is a very broad word, so when we refer to a 'science of morality', this doesn't mean wearing a white lab coat while using a Bunsen burner to see what answer it gives us. It simply means applying the scientific method to a particularly complex and seemingly subjective field. Morality at its most basic is about the well being of conscious creatures, about avoiding the worst possible pain and achieving 'the good life'. Science, that is the scientific method, can help us achieve this. (Do I think we'll ever have a single, all-encompassing theory on morality? I doubt it. But that's not to say there aren't facts to discover about human and animal well being.) -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
Ralph Kruhm wrote
BTW, can we just appreciate the fact that Jupiter Ascending is so unrelevant that it just ignited a little discussion about positive thinking, education, and the role of science in it?
Not bad at all, for a total failure as a movie, I think.
-
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015 edited
Steven, first of all, anti-vax nut jobs don't care about evidence, as anti-science movements do in general. That's part of the problem. Science has been abused so much that people don't trust in it anymore.
Second, I have a science-based education and worked as a biological/medical technical assistant in a prenatal diagnostics laboratory, analysing unborns' DNA for defects and testing embryos for spina bifida and similar things. As such, I experienced the many advantages of science, right alongside the abuse. If the result you give parents leads into a forced abortion, not because something was wrong with the DNA, but because the result showed they were getting a little girl instead of a boy, you start wondering what you are doing there.
I specifically wrote earlier that I also dug into the real scientific aspects of space exploration, but I believe we started our discussion because you want more promising futures shown in movies, and that will always hardly have anything to do with real science, but with what we hope science will be able to achieve someday. -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
In that case, that's great! My point about science was mostly a quip, I admit. But 'uplifting stuff that will help us focus on how to make the future a promising, better place, stuff to inspire our children' certainly falls into the hands of science as well.
Steven, first of all, anti-vax nut jobs don't care about evidence, as anti-science movements do in general. That's part of the problem. Science has been abused so much that people don't trust in it anymore.
Bad example, I admit. Though your implication that we can't use science against science being used for bad lost me a little. -
- CommentAuthorPawelStroinski
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
Steven wrote
Captain Future wrote
This! (What Ralph said.)
Ethis is not grounded in the natural order of things. Ethics are grounded in culture, not nature. The very idea of evolutionary ethics is a naturalistic fallacy.
This sounds precariously close to relativism, which is nonsense.
'Science' is a very broad word, so when we refer to a 'science of morality', this doesn't mean wearing a white lab coat while using a Bunsen burner to see what answer it gives us. It simply means applying the scientific method to a particularly complex and seemingly subjective field. Morality at its most basic is about the well being of conscious creatures, about avoiding the worst possible pain and achieving 'the good life'. Science, that is the scientific method, can help us achieve this. (Do I think we'll ever have a single, all-encompassing theory on morality? I doubt it. But that's not to say there aren't facts to discover about human and animal well being.)
Do you consider philosophy a science? And do you consider the fact that defining a proper scientific method for ethics would be very difficult, if not nigh impossible?
And is science meant to be "uplifting stuff" or to describe the way the world works "as is" and how that can be used by humanity? I don't think Volker deals with relativism here. I think that the fallacy is that we are giving science roles that it's not meant to play. Considering philosophy, ever since, I think, Nietzsche philosophy made a turn from the normative (to your question about single, all-encompassing theory of morality... there were a crapload of these, from the Ancient Greeks up to early 19th century) to descriptive, which of course brings it closer to the scientific method (especially in the Anglo-Saxon field).http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015 edited
Ralph Kruhm wrote
but I believe we started our discussion because you want more promising futures shown in movies, and that will always hardly have anything to do with real science, but with what we hope science will be able to achieve someday.
Er... nope. I only joined the discussion a few posts up. -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015 edited
I meant our personal discussion that started with your statement about prefering promising futures in movies.
That other thing, just to clarify, yeah, of course you can use science against people who abuse it. I just meant that it's no help where it's not accepted by the "enemy" as an argument to change things, as in the very example you cited (global warming being another example), or in every religion-based discussion. -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015 edited
PawelStroinski wrote
Do you consider philosophy a science?
I think philosophy is the womb of science in many cases.
And do you consider the fact that defining a proper scientific method for ethics would be very difficult, if not nigh impossible?
Steven wrote
(Do I think we'll ever have a single, all-encompassing theory on morality? I doubt it. But that's not to say there aren't facts to discover about human and animal well being.)
PawelStroinski wrote
And is science meant to be "uplifting stuff" or to describe the way the world works "as is" and how that can be used by humanity? I don't think Volker deals with relativism here. I think that the fallacy is that we are giving science roles that it's not meant to play. Considering philosophy, ever since, I think, Nietzsche philosophy made a turn from the normative (to your question about single, all-encompassing theory of morality... there were a crapload of these, from the Ancient Greeks up to early 19th century) to descriptive, which of course brings it closer to the scientific method (especially in the Anglo-Saxon field).
I'm feeling rather lazy. So I'll refer this to a quote:
“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?” - Steven Novella -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015 edited
Ralph Kruhm wrote
I meant our personal discussion that started with your statement about prefering promising futures in movies.
I honestly don't remember making this statement.
I think you're confusing me with Scribe. -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
Ralph Kruhm wrote
There's nothing wrong with showing something positive and inspiring, but you also need a reminder that a bright future will not happen all by itself, especially not if you think you can get it without dealing with the bad influences first.
That's the bigger problem with the entertainment industry out there, especially that for the masses. It tells you to follow your dreams and to have a happy live and all that, but totally neglects to mention that you are not going to get it that easy, because there will always be people who will take it from you for a dime.
I thought Cloud Atlas did a good job of balancing those themes. I liked it because it showed believable characters in morally complex situations making unselfish choices for the betterment of society, learning to trust the trustworthy and shun the others, learning to have compassion even when it had little selfish gain. I enjoy it because the specialness of the characters was directly related to the quality of their morals. Jupiter Ascending on the other hand seems to be about a character who is special because of her blood. That's some woo that I really don't care about.
Also, I'm sorry for starting an argument, I thought everyone would just roll their eyes and go back to posting about Giacchino Speaking of which, perhaps Tomorrowland will be the spiritually positive science-glorifying film that many of us are waiting for?
Ralph Kruhm wrote
Steven, first of all, anti-vax nut jobs don't care about evidence, as anti-science movements do in general. That's part of the problem. Science has been abused so much that people don't trust in it anymore.
The vaccine skeptics I know are better versed in the evidence, studies (or lack of them) and science than most mainstream people who just accept whatever mass media tells them. It's an absurd oversimplification to accuse anyone who doesn't follow the mainstream accepted point of view of "not caring about the evidence." Sure, they may have flaws in their critical thinking process, but at least they're bothering to think for themselves, which is an all-too rare trait these days.I love you all. Never change. Well, unless you want to! -
- CommentAuthorPawelStroinski
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
That quite was attributed to so many people, I'm glad you possibly pointed out the right one (I think even to Bill Nye!)
I nowhere disagree with science as it is. But this is where exactly I draw the line, that science is "uplifting stuff". It's as Novella said a "systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results". In other words, scientific discovery (especially scientific papers, considering the language!) is not meant to be uplifting or to bring anyone down. It's about observing, evaluating and describing natural phenomena.http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
Steven wrote
Ralph Kruhm wrote
I meant our personal discussion that started with your statement about prefering promising futures in movies.
I honestly don't remember making this statement.
I think you're confusing me with Scribe.
Fuck. I did indeed. I'm sorry. -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
Steven wrote
I think you're confusing me with Scribe.
And that would be a truly egregious error.I love you all. Never change. Well, unless you want to! -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
PawelStroinski wrote
I nowhere disagree with science as it is. But this is where exactly I draw the line, that science is "uplifting stuff". It's as Novella said a "systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results". In other words, scientific discovery (especially scientific papers, considering the language!) is not meant to be uplifting or to bring anyone down. It's about observing, evaluating and describing natural phenomena.
Yes, but it can also be uplifting (granted, this is a matter of perspective, but it also 'uplifts' us through more practical ways, i.e. medicine and technology). -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015 edited
Scribe wrote
Ralph Kruhm wrote
Steven, first of all, anti-vax nut jobs don't care about evidence, as anti-science movements do in general. That's part of the problem. Science has been abused so much that people don't trust in it anymore.
The vaccine skeptics I know are better versed in the evidence, studies (or lack of them) and science than most mainstream people who just accept whatever mass media tells them.
Ha! If that really is true, then they're more deluded than I thought.
It's an absurd oversimplification to accuse anyone who doesn't follow the mainstream accepted point of view of "not caring about the evidence." Sure, they may have flaws in their critical thinking process, but at least they're bothering to think for themselves, which is an all-too rare trait these days.
It's an absurd oversimplification to conflate reasonable criticism of a nonsensical movement like anti-vaxxers with prejudice for "not accepting the mainstream". -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015 edited
Scribe wrote
Jupiter Ascending on the other hand seems to be about a character who is special because of her blood. That's some woo that I really don't care about.
That's the whole point: It isn't about that at all. She is told to be special because of her blood, yes, but she clearly defies that again and again by everything she says and does. She may accept what comes with the privilege, because she thinks she can do some good with it (or that it will bring good things to her ^^), but in the end she learns a lot about what is special and precious.
Also, I'm sorry for starting an argument, I thought everyone would just roll their eyes and go back to posting about Giacchino Speaking of which, perhaps Tomorrowland will be the spiritually positive science-glorifying film that many of us are waiting for?
I like the discussion. Don't worry. And I have high hopes for Tomorrowland, too.
Ralph Kruhm wrote
Steven, first of all, anti-vax nut jobs don't care about evidence, as anti-science movements do in general. That's part of the problem. Science has been abused so much that people don't trust in it anymore.
The vaccine skeptics I know are better versed in the evidence, studies (or lack of them) and science than most mainstream people who just accept whatever mass media tells them. It's an absurd oversimplification to accuse anyone who doesn't follow the mainstream accepted point of view of "not caring about the evidence." Sure, they may have flaws in their critical thinking process, but at least they're bothering to think for themselves, which is an all-too rare trait these days.
Well, most vaccine skeptics I know are really great in digging up the most obscure studies and counter-arguments they can find. They may appear to have a scientific view on it, but in the end, they accept only the data they believe in. Well, a lot of them, at least. But certainly, there are well-versed experts on both sides. -
- CommentTimeFeb 8th 2015
*vaccine deniers