Outer Space = Augmented triad played by near-catatonic-by-arpeggio violinists

Hang on...you mean outer space doesn't sound like that??

Re worst score nominations: I heard a stinker last night. 25th hour by Terence Blanchard. Not good. Too much of everything and wall to wall noodling. Also a pseudo Lisa Gerrard thing. Ouch.

Also a generalised worst score nomination for anything by David Arnold. Sorry David.

By the way a UK paper recently carried an interview of Ennio Morricone (IMHO a seriously good composer) by the aforementioned Arnold. Quite funny.

I agree about Morricone. I haven't heard those other ones (consciously) and maybe that's a good thing from what you say.

Morpheus,

Morricone?

Oh yeah. Lots of fans of his around here. Great writer. Certainly one of my favorites.

William,

Max Steiner? Is it just me or is the theme for Gone With The Wind, simplistic, laborious and overblown?

King of the World? You mean King Kong the great film with a great score by Mr. Steiner? Or that awful film and score that just sort of sank into the depths?

Dave Connor

You have a point there, Dave. Perhaps I am being a bit too positive about old Max. I agree on Gone with the Wind (gag). I wish it had just gone.

Why is the director of Lord of the Rings remaking King Kong? Why bother? You can't beat the original version with Fay Wray. Its impossible. Just leave it alone Jackson and do something original.

Make a film of Asimov's Foundation Trilogy. Your'e good at doing things in threes. Now, that would be worth waiting for.

Very good point Paul.

I was actually grateful that Mr. Jackson was going to do a version of the film having been so disappointed with the DeLaurentis version. But you're right: what's the point? That incredible movie will never be outdone - it's amazing. The first blockbuster.

Steiner did a great job on that film. I do wonder what Korngold thought of the theme to GWTW. I can't imagine he liked it at all.

Dave Connor

I agree with the puzzlement on remaking Kong which is a masterpiece and one of the great original stories of the cinema and probably the whole 20th century. It is a story of mythic significance, and was created just for that movie. Also I don't care if Kong will look more realistic - the original has character and was hand-made and hand-animated, and that is a thousand times more significant than CGI "realism."

A favorite anecdote of David Raksin regarding Steiner and Korngold:

Korngold's wife, "Erich, it seems that Max's music is getting better and your's is slipping."

Korngold, "Of course, he's been copying from me and I've been copying from him."

DC

Haha! Good! On Kong, I don't care if the computer graphics look brilliant, which they undoubtably will. But Jackson will struggle to get that feel of the original time and the pathos in my view. New audiences probably won't care though. So, OK, never mind.

Hitchcock on Tallulah Bankhead and the film Lifeboat. The crew complained Ms Bankhead refused to wear undergarments and it was causing camera angle problems because of the space. Hitchcock replied that he didn't know if it was a problem for the cameraman or the hairdresser.

Another. An actress asked Hitchcock which side her best profile was. Hitchcock replied ' Your'e sitting on it my dear'.

Yes Hitch was a character. I often am struck by how even in this time of immense overpopulation, there is absolutely NO ONE remotely like that one particular person. Even though many desperately want to be. He is one of those few whom you really want to be immortal (unlike most people whose mortality is an immense relief to themselves and others).

@William said:

I agree with the puzzlement on remaking Kong which is a masterpiece and one of the great original stories of the cinema and probably the whole 20th century. It is a story of mythic significance, and was created just for that movie. Also I don't care if Kong will look more realistic - the original has character and was hand-made and hand-animated, and that is a thousand times more significant than CGI "realism."

You obviously do not understand CGI (I hate that term) [:)] .I work in computer games... We have many animators here who painstakingly move each character frame by frame to achieve 'cgi animation'.... and the modellers who build the actual 3d models out of polygons.... vertex by vertex, and then they paint the texture maps which are then wrapped around the wireframe models. These are everybit just as hand crafted as stop motion... just as your compositions are no doubt just as hand crafted on your midikeyboard. Have you ever seen how texture maps are painted... well it's by using a program like Photoshop and a wacom tablet (a digital pen that you actually grasp and paint on the screen with, pressure and angle sensitive so you can shade as if it were a real airbrush.
.I am a traditional artist... you give me a pencil and i'll draw whatever, but I now also use computers because it is another medium. But no less artistic ability is required.

I am aware of the complexity of CGI since I do it and 3D animation. I am working right now on a video production using Poser 5 and Bryce and love using them. But I also have worked in traditional stop motion by hand and because of that I like its old-fashioned nature. The best animated films ever made are probably the Brothers Quay shorts, which are militantly old-fashioned, handmade, all-film, non-digital surrealism. I don't like the way stop motion animation has been assumed to be less valuable merely because it does not look as superficially realistic.

William, always good for a surprise...

You didn´t answer yet what kind of films you do yourself, b.t.w. I´m really curious!

@mathis said:

William, always good for a surprise...

I didn't know you were good for surprises Bill! Mathis is curious about everything (and why not?).

James, you make a good point, but I think what Bill meant and what I subscribe to is the 'magic' of the early animation such as Harryhausen i.e. Jason & the Argonauts, Mysterious Island etc. Yes, they can make it look better and more real these days, but the effect is not any less with the early examples of this art. [:)]

i for one have full faith in Jackson's ultimate King Kong that will come. He is on record saying that he wanted to make the film because all the remakes DID NOT capture the mystique of the original. And after LOTR how could he go wrong? he is a perfect filmmaker. It's not by accident that every single cinematic element of LOTR raised the bar for everyone in the industry. he directed it. Pure and simple, he is the next Hitchcock in my mind. The perfect filmmaker, who can have some bad films, or commercial failures, but none the less is the top of the craft and completely reliable for fans.

Evan Evans

I don´t think my opinion is relevant in this discussion. But I actually hated almost anything in LOTR. I saw the first, then I hoped the second would be better and to the third I didn´t pay any attention anymore.

But that´s just me. Probably not very business friendly attitude...

@Another User said:

Mathis is curious about everything (and why not?).

Ahhhh, yes,... why not?

Actually, I agree with Mathis more or less on LOTR. Very well done, I grant you, but the film ultimately did NOT capture Tolkeins book and why he wrote it in the first place. That was his (Jackson's) original thought when making the film, so it's no good saying in hindsite that the film is for films' sake alone. It brings to life the characters and action in the book LOTR, but misses by miles Tolkeins intention, in my view.

AFIK, there has only really been one remake of King Kong and that was crap; one star out of five. King Kong is an analogy of many things. It was done in the thirties and done as well as it needed to be done. Period.
LOTR is about what? Anyone care to tell me of Tolkeins intention.
Evan Evans: If Peter Jackson is the next Alfred Hitchcock I will go singing and dancing around the battlements screaming 'Rapunzel, Rapunzel!
The next Hitchcock indeed! Pah! What rubbish you come out with at times!
How on earth do you come to the conclusion that LOTR has raised the cinematic bar? This is from the guy who thinks Peter Pan is in the top three films he's seen. F**k me, I've had better dreams than that after a night on the piss.

For God sake, give me a break! [8o|]

I'd like to see Paul doing that Rapunzel routine.

Mathis, I liked what you said about having many irons in the fire - I'm also trying to, though it does reduce productivity since there is an exponential increase in what has to be learned and understood in multiple art forms. Though I've done two feature films in 16mm, I'm now working on digital video. Much cheaper! (By a factor of ten.) I'm doing some abstract animation. Are you doing something similar? This is how I am trying to deal with the problem I've mentioned on other posts - how film composers always have to accept scoring bad films, and it is just "part of the game."

Though my films have been pretty bad so far. And it does cause severe practicality (not to mention mental) problems. But if you only score your own films, at least you'll never refuse to work with the director again. (Actually, come to think of it, you might depending on your mental state: "I'm never working with that bastard again! He's crazy!")

Interesting chatter here.

I find most interesting the comparison of Hitchcock and Jackson. Jackson is a very good filmaker (particularly compared to todays average bunch.) It just seems impossible to compare any one to Hitchcock in that he is such a singular talent. He's been copied a ton but there is nothing like a Hitchcock film. They're just are their own thing. Kubrick is certainly unique to the point of being incomparable talent - wise. Will Jackson end up as this kind of singular talent? He will have to reveal a body of work like those two stellar geniuses. We'll see.

DC

btw I started this thread so can't we talk about how crappy this or that film composer is? [:)]

I agree with that, and would add that the filmmakers who are as original as Hitchcock are very few - Welles, Fellini, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Bunuel, Kurosawa, Chaplin, Buster Keaton, possibly David Lynch and Brothers Quay among recent ones. Very few others on that level of invention of the very basis of cinema, which Hitchcock and Kubrick were instrumental in.

Peter Jackson has done a very good literary adaptation. He can be taken seriously, but has everything to do now to even begin to compare to those names, because they adapted nothing. They created.