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.

@dpcon said:

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

My appologies Dave. That was perhaps a little harsh on my part. But I will finally say this with regard to Evans opinion about Jackson.

44 years after Psycho (for instance) was released, it is still discussed. The film has an effect before, during and after people have seen it. It's remembered long after viewing, and although people maybe cannot discuss it on an intellectual level or put into words their thoughts, the effect is there nevertheless. This is the art and effect of film making, filmscoring etc at it's best. Strangers on a Train, Vertigo, Rear Window, North by Northwest, 39 Steps and so on.
If Hitchcock were alive today and on top form and they offered him LOTR, he'd probably laugh and suggest they offer it to the special effects boys.
Bernard Herrmann would probably take a long holiday.

44 years after LOTR has been released, how often is that going to be discussed at any level apart from special effects comparisons in the future?

The Lord of the Rings is a cinematic achievement, but it is basically 8 hours of special effects. The acting is good enough, but is neither here nor there, partly because the characters in the book are already so clearly defined in ones own imagination. For a film to become a true piece of art, it more or less has to be flawless in most departments, with exceptions of course. The two actors, with the greatest respect, that play Merry and Pippin are basically dreadful in my view. These are key parts in the book and therefore the film. The best performance, in my view, was that of Sean Bean as Boromir. He understood his part well.

Part of the problem could be attributed to attention span. It's almost as if one is watching a video game, only without any control. Great film for the hard of thinking, as opposed to the hard of hearing. For people who don't want to read a 1000 page plus book.

To me, Psycho, for instance, is like a really good meal in an Italian restaurant. You come out and have no wish for any further gastronomic gratification.

On the other hand, LOTR is like a good Chinese takeaway; 10 minutes later your'e looking for a really good Italian restaurant again. [:D]

I haven't heard anyone yet, the day after they've seen LOTR, talk about it in any detail except to say, Yeah, it was really good,,,ummmm yeah'

If Peter Jackson is to be compared to Hitchcock, he'd better do something pretty original, and pretty quick. King Kong will probably look stunning, but it won't cut it with me. Your'e either a film maker or a money factory. Be original. And then do it again and again and again. If that happens, I will personally go to Carmel. Run through the streets. And proclaim Evan as the next Guru of all time. At the same time eating a hat of his choice. Can't see it happening myself.

Many thanks

PaulR

@William said:

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

Ha! The citizens of Nevada aren't quite ready for that yet Bill. I would much rather watch one of your original digital videos or 16 mm films with your original music and scoring any day of the week. Your point about creation as opposed to adaptation is very well made and taken.

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

Dave. Exactly!

@William said:

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.

hehe, I hope I won't offend you when I say this... but Bryce 3d and poser are both considered (at least with every 3d artist I ever speak to) to be the 'loops' equivalent in the CGI world. What I mean by that is that in poser... it provides you with 'ready made' 3d models and textures to use (as opposed to building them from scratch, as the professional artists in games/films do) and in bryce (which is a fractal landscape generator) it comes with it's own library of premade textures and models. I've personally never been a fan of either programs because they tend to produce very samey results because the users aren't actually creating stuff from scratch but are assembling images by using the stock libraries of assets. I've never seen a poser or bryce image that impressed me, although I can see how to the layman playing around with those programs can be good fun and at least introduce them to the very basics of digital art (almost like a paint by numbers book). Sorry if i'm sounding arrogant [:(] I'm certainly not insuating that you are a layman, if you are a stop motion animator, then I have great respect for you, It's just that like music i'm extremely passionate about art. When you see all the artists where I work create a character, for example... each and every one will be a reflection of thier style, how they light the character, their scene composition, etc. Whereas an image created in Bryce or Poser very rarely has any spark of individualism... It's fair to say I am quite anti-bryce/poser. [:D] pretty much just like I am anti-loops in music [;)]

James McWilliams,

Wow! You put me in my place! I'm impressed. The layman is now in awe of the pro. You are not arrogant, not at all. That's not the word I would use. Unfortunately I can't use that word here.

Poser uses readymade models. Duh! Did you just discover that? It's not even a modeling program! Also, you've never seen anything good done with those programs? Man, you must be blind. Or totally incompetent if you can't make them work for you.

Let me explain one little thing to you: technical complexity is absolutely meaningless, unless you do something good with it. I long ago stopped being impressed by what obviously impresses you - how many techniques were used to create something. Often the worst pieces of crap are the hardest to make and have the most technical complexity. ESPECIALLY in the field of CGI (the term you hate but which is perfectly descriptive and accurate).

Have a nice CGI day.

P.S. Before you impress everyone with more of your "expertise" (please note the quotation marks - very important in this case): Is it my imagination, or isn't this a forum about MUSIC?

yes, yes, also softimage which comes with this ready made textures and preconfigured models is a lousy program used for all those boring films during the last years (please replace *softimage* with *maya* in case you prefer it) [8o|]
christian
ohh - although the music had considered to be nice ... [6]

@William said:

James McWilliams,

Wow! You put me in my place! I'm impressed. The layman is now in awe of the pro. You are not arrogant, not at all. That's not the word I would use. Unfortunately I can't use that word here.

Poser uses readymade models. Duh! Did you just discover that? It's not even a modeling program! Also, you've never seen anything good done with those programs? Man, you must be blind. Or totally incompetent if you can't make them work for you.

Let me explain one little thing to you: technical complexity is absolutely meaningless, unless you do something good with it. I long ago stopped being impressed by what obviously impresses you - how many techniques were used to create something. Often the worst pieces of crap are the hardest to make and have the most technical complexity. ESPECIALLY in the field of CGI (the term you hate but which is perfectly descriptive and accurate).

Have a nice CGI day.

P.S. Before you impress everyone with more of your "expertise" (please note the quotation marks - very important in this case): Is it my imagination, or isn't this a forum about MUSIC?

I was not actually trying to put you in any place, i was just putting forward a point of view. Not Mud slinging. I also was not talking about technical complexity but simply creativity (i'm not a technical person at all). CGi actually is not always perfectly descriptive and accurate of many forms of digital art IMHO.

Anyhow, Sorry if I insulted you, I guess what I was saying didn't come out how I meant it, although in retrospect I can see how it could be taken that way. Thats the problem with typing on forums I fear. [[:D]]

Cm, you convieniently overlook the fact that all those lousy films did not use those pre-configured models. [;)]

Anyhow, i guess i'll not post of it further... seeing as I've exposed the nerve ends somewhat, and i've dragged us all off-topic enough for one day. I'll stay out of here from now on... less stress for all of us [[:D]]

@James McWilliams said:

[quote=William]James McWilliams,
Anyhow, Sorry if I insulted you, I guess what I was saying didn't come out how I meant it, although in retrospect I can see how it could be taken that way. Thats the problem with typing on forums I fear. [:D]

James,

It's also a problem when people post pictures of handbags. When I decide to have a go at someone, for what I feel is a legitimate reason, I'll take my lumps and punishment from the person I'm dealing with. I don't need photos. You haven't enough experience to change my mind about anything you could possibly imagine. That's the kind of stuff one sees on other forums, not on VSL. If you've got a problem with typing what you mean, then I suggest you take a course in English. No excuse whatsoever. I'm sorry to have to put it like this; I'm sure your'e a decent bloke and good at what you do.

However, I take your point, and have respect for anyone who appologises. I have to do it all the time. Actually, I'm interested to know what sort of music you like and write, as I'm sure everyone else is. I'm assuming you've finally got your computer system sorted out. Another time maybe.

As you say, you, Evan and I have managed to go off-topic on this thread and appologies to Dave and Bill and others for doing so.

PR

@James McWilliams said:

[quote=William]James McWilliams,
Anyhow, Sorry if I insulted you, I guess what I was saying didn't come out how I meant it, although in retrospect I can see how it could be taken that way. Thats the problem with typing on forums I fear. [[:D]]

James,

It's also a problem when people post pictures of handbags. When I decide to have a go at someone, for what I feel is a legitimate reason, I'll take my lumps and punishment from the person I'm dealing with. I don't need photos. Thats the kind of stuff one sees on other forums, not on VSL. If you've got a problem with typing, then I suggest you take a course in English. No excuse whatsoever.

However, I take your point, and have respect for anyone who appologises. I do it all the time. Actually, I'm interested to know what sort of music you like and write, as I'm sure everyone else is. I'm assuming you've finally got your computer system sorted out. Another time maybe.

As you say, you, Evan and I have managed to go off-topic on this thread and appologies to Dave And Bill for doing so.

PR
Hey Paul,

The Handbag really was a lighthearted joke [;)] (Humour, like art is subjective of course) As i said though, probably not a good idea to post any more... I end up worrying about upsetting people, and that's affects my work [[:D]] I'm not sure I want to post any music now tho, sorry.

@James McWilliams said:

[quote="PaulRHey Paul,

The Handbag really was a lighthearted joke [;)] (Humour, like art are subjective of course) As i said though, probably not a good idea to post any more... I end up worrying about upsetting people, and that's affects my work [:D] I'm not sure I want to post any music now tho, sorry.

Look James,

Don't worry about upsetting people as long as it's for a legitimate reason. If you or I have an opinion about anything, the thing to do is to be a bit diplomatic and see other points of view and take them into account. Unless it's obviously crap and you feel there's trolling going on (like on the other thread:re stereotyping).
Nobody on this thread wants you to stop posting points of interest. Stick with us kid, we'll look after you. [H] These guys know what they're on about. I'm just a junior member they put with.

PR

Ok, let´s go back to music. Howard Shore.
I´m actually pretty at a loss how I should judge his music. When I was watching the films I was really impressed about the constant use of rumble. I mean, after an hour or so I was ready to puke. I think this was one of the main distracting factors in this film.
I thought this rumble work was part of the sound effects design. I mean I *really* love the subwoofer in cinema, but it has to be used effectfully, means sparingly.
Now I heard the soundtrack and was quite surprised that this low end comes from the music. I mean, there´s lot of delicate things going on in the mid and high range, but even during some more lyrical passages there is *always* some deep rumbling going on. I couldn´t stand listening to it to the end.
What´s the purpose for that? What´s the desired effect? I honestly don´t understand it. On me personally it works anti-stimulating. Am I terribly oldfashioned or what?

Bests,
- Mathis

If you're old-fashioned I guess I am also. The overuse of "Earthquake" sensuround (anyone remember that?) has gotten ridiculous. You hear something similar in trailers - it doesn't have to be "Independence Day" where it makes sense somewhat. It can be just a drama, with people talking in a room, but each scene transition must be accompanied by an explosion noise.

Paul,

No problem with the different directions this thread has taken: it's all good. I was kidding about getting back to bashing some composer. Don't really want to do that. However I'm sure I won't be able to restrain myself if I hear some dreadful innocuous crap from some 80 million dollar film.

Dave