Awesome Score - Awful Movie

[Thor 7,504]

LEGEND is gorgeous, like a moving, audiovisual painting. And sometimes, that's all I need of a film -- screw plot!

[publicist 4,643]

17 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

Its approach and cast aren't really a problem. The approach is classic and the filmmakers know that and the cast is okay.

The major problem is that the fantasy world and the characters are very pretentious in both 1,5h versions. This is considerably improved in the director's cut with just 20 minutes of more material. Another 40 minutes could unfold a credible and detailed fantasy world that you can dive into like in the Harry Potter movies.

 

It really isn't. The main characters remain unconvincing ciphers, bereft of any charme, and it's clear that was a problem from the outset and it remains till the end. Scott just miscalculated his script and for a film of this genre, this lore, it's a death knell. The Director's Cut just improves some of the more glaring pacing issues.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

There are some striking bits in that movie...the unicorn getting shot with an arrow, then getting its horn cut off is shocking and surprisingly powerful, and the dancing dress scene is particularly well done...and is pretty effective at even being a little scary. That red demon was extremely well realised. And visually the movie is gorgeous. 

 

I don't think it's a very good movie, it just has some very intriguing parts that unfortunately in their sum aren't enough to elevate the film. A film like this can have plot+visuals, or character+visuals, or plot+character, but it has to have at least two of the three to be successful (IMO).  Legend only has one.

[publicist 4,643]

I particularly love the underwater shots when Cruise fetches the ring. The whole scene is brilliantly shot (titled 'The Ring' on the Goldsmith release).

[1977 1,743]

On 25 January 2018 at 10:49 PM, Chen G. said:

To me the reveal in Return of the Jedi never felt pre-planned or natural. It was just a "you really wanted to copy the 'I am your father' moment, didn't ya?"

 

But didn't Yoda say to Obi-Wan in ESB "No, there is another"?

[publicist 4,643]

PS: Scott must have watched Max Reinhardt's old Warner Bros. version of Shakespeare's midsummer night's dream pretty closely

 

 

[Manakin Skywalker 4,893]

20 minutes ago, JTWfan77 said:

 

But didn't Yoda say to Obi-Wan in ESB "No, there is another"?

According to George Lucas, Luke was supposed to have a sister that wasn't Leia; just some random new character, but decided to have it be Leia instead when he decided that ROTJ would be the last film in the saga.

[1977 1,743]

On 27 January 2018 at 11:49 AM, publicist said:

I never talked about that but about the useless semantics behind it. You seem a bit over your head here.

 

Then I'm very much out of my league in this company. I just know what I like and what I don't like, but am at a complete loss to articulate why that is.

[Jurassic Shark 12,076]

14 minutes ago, publicist said:

PS: Scott must have watched Max Reinhardt's old Warner Bros. version of Shakespeare's midsummer night's dream pretty closely

 

 

 

With great adaptation of Mendelssohn's music by Korngold.

[A24 4,333]

11 hours ago, publicist said:

PS: Scott must have watched Max Reinhardt's old Warner Bros. version of Shakespeare's midsummer night's dream pretty closely

 

 

 

Indeed, pubs.  Scott wanted to fuse the sensibilities of Jean Cocteau's Beauty And The Beast with A Midsummer Night's Dream (1935). At the time Scott said he wanted to prove with Legend that he wasn't 'that director who can only make cold movies'. Not sure if he succeeded.

[bollemanneke 3,348]

Has Moulin Rouge been mentioned yet?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

Which one?

[filmmusic 1,829]

22 hours ago, Thor said:

LEGEND is gorgeous, like a moving, audiovisual painting. And sometimes, that's all I need of a film -- screw plot!

One of my favourite films too.

(although i do get a bit bored towards the end).

But it has a magnificent atmosphere.

And i cannot understand people saying that the TD score is better than Goldsmith's!!

I feel  ths nostalgia is talking there.

5 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

Has Moulin Rouge been mentioned yet?

Moulin Rouge, an awful movie?

(that is if you're talking about the 2001 film).

 

I guess you don't like romantic films.

[A24 4,333]

People forget that dialog is a part of the audiovisual as well. And the dialog of Legend is far from aesthetically pleasing. 

 

13 hours ago, filmmusic said:

 

(although i do get a bit bored towards the end).

 

 

The rescue mission is boring on all levels, even visually. Gone are the beautiful sets of the first half. In fact, when the world turned dark is the moment when Legend stopped being a painting. The only information we are receiving is the faces of the characters (close-ups), as if it's a TV show from the '80s. Characters I don't think are that intriguing, BTW. Me thinks there was no more money to finish the movie in a decent way and so Scott solved that problem by not showing the world any longer. At least, that's how it feels to me. Legend was my first disappointment in Ridley Scott and there were many more to come.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

But the music... no words... too impressive...

 

Goldsmith's best scores were both composed for Ridley Scott films. The man didn't really know what a gift he got. These two scores exceed everything else you can imagine.

[Thor 7,504]

2 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

People forget that dialog is a part of the audiovisual as well. And the dialog of Legend is far from aesthetically pleasing. 

 

Not really. It's audible, yes, but not really part of the cognitive processes that we associate with audiovisual stimuli.

 

You have to approach LEGEND like you do a Bela Tarr film, or a Tarkovskij, or an Angelopoulous. Not like a "traditional Hollywood fantasy film". That will get you the most out of it.

[Jurassic Shark 12,076]

23 minutes ago, Thor said:

Not really. It's audible, yes, but not really part of the cognitive processes that we associate with audiovisual stimuli.

 

If a voice is pleasing to listen to (which is highly subjective), or if it speaks in a rhythmically pleasing manner, I'd say it's stimulating.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

32 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

But the music... no words... too impressive...

 

Goldsmith's best scores were both composed for Ridley Scott films. The man didn't really know what a gift he got. These two scores exceed everything else you can imagine.

 

I'd say some directors are egotistically wary of quality music because they irrationally fear that it will distract the audience from the pretty pictures, and the composer will receive more credit for the end product.

 

I didn't see Legend until years after I first heard the score, so I imagined a richer film than what it turned out to be.

[Thor 7,504]

1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

If a voice is pleasing to listen to (which is highly subjective), or if it speaks in a rhythmically pleasing manner, I'd say it's stimulating.

 

'Stimulating' (in the colloquial sense, as in 'pleasurable') and 'stimuli' is not the same thing. But you're probably jesting.

 

Dialogue is not something that is generally associated with the purely audiovisual experience of watching a film. In film analysis, one usually separates between dialogue and other forms of diegetic sound. That's because a very different set of cognitive mechanisms are in play when you listen to, and decipher someone's speech on the one hand, and then puts visual and aural stimuli together on another.

 

That's why it's perfectly possible to enjoy LEGEND as a 'moving painting', and pay minimal attention to faults in dialogue or shallow characters -- which is I believe is what the main criticism is in this case.

[Jurassic Shark 12,076]

I'm not jesting, just pointing out that a voice can be aesthetically pleasing regardless of the meaning of the words (although I guess that's a negligible detail when it comes to analyzing movies). Anyway, it has been used to great effect in several modern compositions. The Civil Wars by Philip Glass, to mention one.

[Thor 7,504]

Yes, not denying that a voice can be aesthetically pleasing or have an impact when you're deciphering someone's speech, or even how you read a character.

 

But it has nothing to do with 'audiovisual stimuli' in this case.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response?

[publicist 4,643]

FYI: 

1 hour ago, Denise Bryson said:

I'd say some directors are egotistically wary of quality music because they irrationally fear that it will distract the audience from the pretty pictures, and the composer will receive more credit for the end product.

 

Edgar Froese from Tangerine Dream in his biography describes Scott as being the opposite: according to Froese he was shown 'Legend' in Los Angeles and found the Goldsmith score one of the best he ever heard. Scott agreed and said, strained, he was just a hired hand and had no say in the matter and that the studio just wanted a pop score and he suggested TD in the hope to make the best out the sad situation. 

[A24 4,333]

3 hours ago, Thor said:

 

Not really. It's audible, yes, but not really part of the cognitive processes that we associate with audiovisual stimuli.

 

 

Well, perhaps not for you, but it certainly is for me. Besides containing 'information', spoken dialog also consists of sound and rhythm, and therefore it is very much a part of the aural stimuli. Take an actor's voice, for instance. That in itself can be aesthetically pleasing. Some movies have such beautiful dialog that they can be watched with eyes closed. Just like music, the dialog sings, or the dialog is 'musical'. This is also true for the lyrics in music. Maybe you disagree because you aren't aware of this or you simply don't care for it. For many songwriters the sound of words is at least as important as the meaning of the words. 

[Thor 7,504]

I don't disagree with anything you said. There's just a fundamental difference between the experience of dialogue and other sounds when you're watching a film.

 

Unless the dialogue has been shaped in a way to mirror sound design, they are two very different cognitive operations.

 

In what way is the dialogue in LEGEND relevant for the purely sonic experience of the film? It's a rather farfetched notion.

[A24 4,333]

2 hours ago, Thor said:

 

In what way is the dialogue in LEGEND relevant for the purely sonic experience of the film? It's a rather farfetched notion.

 

In the same way it is relevant for any other movie. Dialog is a part of the sound track, just like any other sound is. Dialog is sound. Generally speaking, badly written dialog, or, for instance, dialog spoken by mediocre actors is like fingernails scratching a blackboard and can therefore have a negative effect on the other stimuli at work. A good way to find out how important dialog is as 'sound' is to listen to a movie instead of watching it. 

 

 

[Thor 7,504]

But you don't point out any sonic qualities of the dialogue here. You're just talking about the CONTENTS of what they're saying (or the delivery). No doubt badly written and/or perfomed dialogue can influence the impression of a movie, but it's really very separate from the experience of other diegetic sounds.

 

If you're now equating dialogue with other diegetic sounds, you're basically refuting DECADES of cognitive film theory. I hope you have a good case!

[Jurassic Shark 12,076]

8 minutes ago, Thor said:

But you don't point out any sonic qualities of the dialogue here.

 

Well, he does write Just like music, the dialog sings, or the dialog is 'musical' and spoken dialog also consists of sound and rhythm.

[Thor 7,504]

Which may all be relevant in a song, for example, but in an aural film context, it's something completely different. It's simply not considered part of the film's soundscape. It's its own thing.

 

Have any of you ever read a film review where someone talks about a film's sonic qualities, and then subsumes dialogue as part of that? I haven't. Dialogue is usually adressed as its own thing; how it creates rhythm in a scene, for example, or how it builds in energy, what it is theyr'e actually talking about, how it's delivered, its absence etc.

 

Can't believe I'm actually debating this. I thought it was pretty common-sensical.

[A24 4,333]

1 hour ago, Thor said:

If you're now equating dialogue with other diegetic sounds, you're basically refuting DECADES of cognitive film theory. I hope you have a good case!

 

Dialog is diegetic sound since it's voiced by actors (delivery/the sound of the voices of the actors), but it's also true for non-diegetic sounds, like narration. I don't see how this refutes anything.

[Jurassic Shark 12,076]

8 minutes ago, Thor said:

Which may all be relevant in a song, but in an aural film context, it's something completely different. It's simply not considered part of the film's soundscape.

 

I don't argue about how a film's soundscape is defined, I'm just saying that a talking voice can be aesthetically pleasing. I don't care how it is labeled.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

@Alexcremers is right on this one. 

 

Anyone who thinks that the sound of words themselves, and how they're delivered in terms of pace, cadence, stress, rhythm, harmony, etc. can't be part of the "soundtrack" and aural experience of the film should spend some time watching and listening to classically trained, Shakespearean actors vs. their Hollywood counterparts.

 

Listen, for example, to Nicol Williamson's Merlin in Excalibur (or pretty much anything else he's in). Or, more accessibly, Alan Rickman.  Or Jacobi (when he's actually trying).

[Thor 7,504]

5 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

Dialog is diegetic sound since it's voiced by actors (delivery/the sound of the voices of the actors), but it's also true for non-diegetic sounds, like narration. I don't see how this refutes anything.

 

Yes, by equating dialogue and other diegetic sounds on the same level, you're refuting decades of film theory and cognitive theory. Just because they're both 'sound waves', doesn't mean they're experienced the same way.

 

4 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

I don't argue about that, I'm just saying that a talking voice can be aesthetically pleasing. I don't care how it is labeled.

 

Sure, I agree with that.

 

2 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

@Alexcremers is right on this one. 

 

Anyone who thinks that the sound of words themselves, and how they're delivered in terms of pace, cadence, stress, etc. can't be part of the "soundtrack" and aural experience of the film should spend some time watching classically trained, Shakespearean actors vs. their Hollywood counterparts.

 

Listen, for example, to Nicol Williamson's Merlin in Excalibur (or pretty much anything else he's in). Or, more accessibly, Alan Rickman.  Or Jacobi (when he's actually trying).

 

Again, you seem to misunderstand the point. The way we experience dialogue (whether it is understanding the content or experiencing the sound of the voice) is a completely different thing than experiencing other sounds in a movie, and combining them with the visuals we are presented.

 

This is absurd. Must I really dig up old quotes and books and research on the topic?

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

 

4 minutes ago, Thor said:

Again, you seem to misunderstand the point. The way we experience dialogue (whether it is understanding the content or experiencing the sound of the voice) is a completely different thing than experiencing other sounds in a movie, and combining them with the visuals we are presented.

 

 "Again"? This is the first comment I've made on this topic.

 

5 minutes ago, Thor said:

This is absurd. Must I really dig up old quotes and books and research on the topic?

 

Yes. I think that would be best.

[Thor 7,504]

OK, I'll pull out some books from the shelf. JWFAN is a 'bizarroworld' sometimes. For decades, we've separated between three main sound sources in a film -- dialogue, sound effects and music. But apparently, that's not true anymore.

[A24 4,333]

11 minutes ago, Thor said:

Just because they're both 'sound waves', doesn't mean they're experienced the same way.

 

 Maybe you can't experience it but I can't separate the sound of dialogue from the rest of the sound track. And who says diegenic sounds can't have aesthetic qualities or serve as a stimuli? 

[Jurassic Shark 12,076]

3 minutes ago, Thor said:

OK, I'll pull out some books from the shelf. JWFAN is a 'bizarroworld' sometimes.

 

Don't do it! It's impossible to convince Nick1066 of anything once his mind is set.

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

OK Thor.

 

BTW, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not saying the brain processes music and dialogue in the same way. I'm just saying that the spoken word can be as integral, and as much a part of the "aural experience" of a film as music or sound effects.

[A24 4,333]

Forget the film theory books:

 

“Writing good dialogue is art as well as craft.  As craft, dialogue serves several functions in any scene. It plunges us into the moment. It reveals character. It moves the plot forward. As art, good dialogue has as much to do with the sound of music as the meaning of words. -Stephen King

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

1 minute ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

Don't do it! It's impossible to convince Nick1066 of anything once his mind is set.

 

 

Not true!  Definitely not true! Absolutely not true!  Unequivocally untrue! And you can't convince me otherwise.

 

Besides, I only stand firm when I'm right. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,076]

1 minute ago, Nick1066 said:

 

Not true!  Definitely not true! Absolutely not true!  Unequivocally untrue! And you can't convince me otherwise.

 

Besides, I only stand firm when I'm right. 

 

Soon, you'll start talking about LOTR...

[Thor 7,504]

Meanwhile, you can check out these random links:

 

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/using-video-clips-below-identify-describe-three-341886

http://thecinematheque.ca/education/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/LanguageofFilm07.pdf

 

Three main sources of sound in film -- dialogue, sound effects and music, and usually treated separately as such (although sound effects and music often merge more).

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

51 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Soon, you'll start talking about LOTR...

 

Nah. Once @Thor honestly admits that most traditional cinema is escapist, my work will be done.

[Thor 7,504]

Ha, ha...is this a previous discussion we've had?

[Jurassic Shark 12,076]

49 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Nah. Once @Thor honestly admits that most traditional cinema is escapist, my work will be done.

 

You can't escape LOTR once you've watched them.

[A24 4,333]

Thor, I don't understand, your own link says dialog is sound. All three sound categories affect mood. Nowhere it says that it shouldn't be regarded part of the sound.

[Jurassic Shark 12,076]

7 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

Thor, I don't understand, your own link says dialog is sound. All three sound categories affect mood. 

 

I guess his point is the three categories affect in different ways. The brain processes them to a large extent differently, but probably there is some overlap.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

Did anyone suggest that biologically the brain processes dialogue the same as music?  Seems to me that's a straw man.

[Jurassic Shark 12,076]

I'm just saying the spoken voice can have musical qualities.

[Chen G. 3,949]

I wouldn't say so much musical qualities, but the timber of the voice is certainly very important. Think about the authority that emanates from a deep voice a-la Christopher Lee or James Earl Jones....

 

But, anyway, film is a visual medium, first.