Friendly answers:
First, you have to define the terms 'emotional' and 'dramatic' (especially if it's "very") a little better and in musical terms if possible, so that there be established a more common frame of reference for everybody, otherwise any one of us can say "for me, so-and-so sounds 'emotional' and very 'dramatic', etc."... One has to try and explain what is great to them in music (as ultimately elusive and futile an endeavour as that is).
With this in mind, I would say that the two You Know Who's tracks you provided are in my opinion the best tracks, absolutely quintessential in demonstrating the degree of unmusicality, ineptitude, and charlatanism in film-music today. The first track emotional? In what way exactly, and how was this achieved musically? I would reserve this track for a video that featured blades of grass grow (slowly), gradually panning away to an establishing shot of a lawn as the dynamics increase and more pads (for that's what they are) are added. Similarly, how is the second track original? Imaginative?!? Either of them melodious?!?!? Always in musical terms. If you have never heard something like this, it is because no one before You Know Who that wrote this badly ever made it to a professional recording studio. However, it does ring quite a bit like a lot of loud Philip Glass of the '70s, only Glass had more music in his pieces (and that's saying something).
I'm saying all this with a very friendly attitude, but keep in mind that symphonic music (filmic or otherwise) has been developing for hundreds of years by the most imaginative and brilliant geniuses, who possessed incredible ears and talent for the art. Technique, whether one likes it or not, is something that has been shared by everyone that has made an indelible mark in the field, and whose music has been revered and enjoyed by millions, or even smaller number of connoisseurs. Of course some may have had more talent and technique than others, and it shows! It is a little like literature. It is that much harder to articulate higher thoughts or deep feeling when one's vocabulary is restricted to no higher than two-syllable words.
But if simplicity and economy are also much coveted qualities in composition, we must not confuse them with vacuity. To cite two great examples of many (if not the whole of Mozart), the opening of Fanfare for the Common Man, and the genius score of the Adagio for Strings (which in my opinion should hang on every student composer's wall), they're almost empty pages; almost no ink... But Power? Emotion? Drama? Landmarks! It is not necessarily complexity that adds quality to a musical work. In fact, Star Wars' main title is not as busy on the page as your ears may trick you to believe. Williams is great primarily because of his technique (he's no melodist to brag about you know...), which (among other things) allows him to communicate maximum content with maximum transparency (the least "dead weight"). No matter how inspired you are you cannot create a score like The Prizoner of Azkaban without copious amounts of technique. H.Z. uses the same number of instruments (if not fewer) but sounds like he's dragging a mountain behind him. Don't shy away from technique because it's bloody hard and takes years to develop. Even Copland's and Barber's deceptively simple pieces mentioned above are products of highly skilled technicians. Another way to think about it is: Name three composers who deliberately use less technique than they possess (and again technique is not synonymous to complexity). Even Hans is doing what he can and no less.
As far as complexity is concerned, there are footages and directors that ask for it, and there are many moments in film when it has sounded appropriate. I admit that repetitive passages can, and have been appropriate in scoring certain scenes, and great composers have used ostinati very fittingly. However, to replace complexity for scoring action, thriller, comedy, cartoon, sci-fi, with endlessly copy-pasting lines on top of one another in different octaves while miking some taikos and tumbling them down the stairs is not 'minimalism' (Adams, Gorecki, Kilar, Reich, Nyman); that's just fraud...