Wojo 2,458 Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 I heard of the book when I was a kid, but I don't recall reading it.
Hlao-roo 390 Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 I heard of the book when I was a kid, but I don't recall reading it.On the Newbery list!
Wojo 2,458 Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 I know, Hlao-roo. I remember the Newberry list. My gifted teacher recommending reading books from it instead of the Caldecott list for obvious reasons...well, obvious if you remember the lists, which you...obviously do.I heard of the book when I was a kid, but I don't recall reading it.Books are boring, and are for boring people. Sorry, not interested!You are the resident LOTR/Hobbit fan most vocally in fear of Radagast's evil bunnies. If you hadn't read the books, you wouldn't know what a Radagast is. Your argument is invalid.
Hlao-roo 390 Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 I know, Hlao-roo. I remember the Newberry list. My gifted teacher recommending reading books from it instead of the Caldecott list for obvious reasons...Ah, but being the gunner I know you are, you read from the Pulitzer list instead.
Wojo 2,458 Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 Forgive me for giving credit where I thought credit was due. With you, it shall never happen again.
JoeinAR 1,957 Posted June 20, 2012 Author Posted June 20, 2012 2007 is my favorite year for film.Really? Why?The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford CRAP MIND NUMBINGLY SLOWNo Country For Old Men PRETTY GOOD BUT NOT A GREAT AS EVERYONE SAYSThere Will Be Blood THE MOVIE IS NEVER AS GOOD AS DDL'S PERFORMANCE. I'm Not There INSUFFERABLE But it's pure KorayZodiac PERHAPS FINCHER'S MOST DULL FILMMichael Clayton POORLY CONSTRUCTED, ABSOLUTELY ZERO DRAMA, YOU KNOW MICHAEL SURVIVES FROM THE BEGINNING SO THE END IS A JOKE3:10 To Yuma PALES AGAINST THE ORIGINAL BUT IS OKAYThe Darjeeling Limited REX REED'S WAS ALMOST RIGHT, AWFUL, JASON SCHWARTZMAN IS UNWATCHABLE.Ratatouille WonderfulNot nearly as good as Koray thinks.
JoeinAR 1,957 Posted June 20, 2012 Author Posted June 20, 2012 another movie that I don't give a shit about.
Krang 1 Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Should we just go year by year of the Academy Awards and pick out what should have been nominated? Could keep us occupied for a year.
stewdog1 50 Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I've never understood the hate for Vangelis. Although I have found people either love his music or hates it. There is very little in-between.As most of you know, I'm a huge Vangelis fan. But I digress.But as for the original point of this thread, yes, '82 was a magical year for film scores. E.T. deserved it, but STII, BR, and Conan would have probably duked it out if it wasn't for the monster JW.
Thor 9,362 Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I've never understood the hate for Vangelis. Me neither. Then again, I've never really understood the negativity for a great many things here at JWFAN.
Thor 9,362 Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I wish Vangelis had worked on more films.Well, he's not quite retired yet. There's a new documentary coming up (on consumerism), hosted by Jeremy Irons, which he scored. Don't remember the name off the top of my head. But yeah...I'd love to see him do a good fiction film again.God, I wish they could convince him (and Scott) to do the now-confirmed BLADE RUNNER 2, but I doubt that's gonna happen.
KK 3,313 Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I've never understood the hate for Vangelis. Although I have found people either love his music or hates it. There is very little in-between.I personally never understood people's fascination with Vangelis, and there are a lot of Vangelis fans out there. Even orchestral purists seem to love his score for Blade Runner. Yet I could never understand why people had such affinity for his music.
Brónach 1,330 Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I've never understood the hate for Vangelis. Although I have found people either love his music or hates it. There is very little in-between.I personally never understood people's fascination with Vangelis, and there are a lot of Vangelis fans out there. Even orchestral purists seem to love his score for Blade Runner. Yet I could never understand why people had such affinity for his music. [media=]
Jonesy 55 Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I love his score for Blade Runner, I think it's a wonderful work.
Brónach 1,330 Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I'm always awestruck at the beginning of Blade Runner with that ominious yet evocative side to it. The subdued music is a part of that,Another famous one![media=]
stewdog1 50 Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 I've never understood the hate for Vangelis. Although I have found people either love his music or hates it. There is very little in-between.I personally never understood people's fascination with Vangelis, and there are a lot of Vangelis fans out there. Even orchestral purists seem to love his score for Blade Runner. Yet I could never understand why people had such affinity for his music.Different strokes for different folks, man. His music speaks to me above anyone else really. But see, I bet that most who have a dislike for him has not listened to much outside of Chariots or Blade Runner. I very rarely listen to either of those.Another famous one![media=] The inside story on L'Enfant is that the director of Chariots wanted to use this as the title theme. However, Vangelis told him that he could do something better, and one of the most iconic film themes of all time was born. And this is why those cues are very similar in style.
KK 3,313 Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 I've never understood the hate for Vangelis. Although I have found people either love his music or hates it. There is very little in-between.I personally never understood people's fascination with Vangelis, and there are a lot of Vangelis fans out there. Even orchestral purists seem to love his score for Blade Runner. Yet I could never understand why people had such affinity for his music.Different strokes for different folks, man. His music speaks to me above anyone else really. But see, I bet that most who have a dislike for him has not listened to much outside of Chariots or Blade Runner. I very rarely listen to either of those.I've listened to a fairly decent amount of Vangelis' work with 1492 and Alexander having the greatest appeal to me (both of which I enjoyed on some level). But there's something about his thematic writing I can't really stand (with exceptions of course). And his outdated synths (or thats how they always sound to me) just don't work for me. Although, some of the minimalistic Chaac showed is alright. Ultimately this is isn't really the composer for me and I was just curious as to what makes so many fall in love with the guy's work.
stewdog1 50 Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 I've never understood the hate for Vangelis. Although I have found people either love his music or hates it. There is very little in-between.I personally never understood people's fascination with Vangelis, and there are a lot of Vangelis fans out there. Even orchestral purists seem to love his score for Blade Runner. Yet I could never understand why people had such affinity for his music.Different strokes for different folks, man. His music speaks to me above anyone else really. But see, I bet that most who have a dislike for him has not listened to much outside of Chariots or Blade Runner. I very rarely listen to either of those.I've listened to a fairly decent amount of Vangelis' work with 1492 and Alexander having the greatest appeal to me (both of which I enjoyed on some level). But there's something about his thematic writing I can't really stand (with exceptions of course). And his outdated synths (or thats how they always sound to me) just don't work for me. Although, some of the minimalistic Chaac showed is alright. Ultimately this is definitely not the composer for me and I was just curious as to what makes so many fall in love with the guy's work.I can't exactly pinpoint what the appeal is to me. I actually consider him one of the greatest artists of our time.I sometimes think that when people try to compare him to other composers, is where some of it lays. For example, you mentioned you couldn't stand his thematic writing. I'm curious if you are comparing it something or someone else?
Cantus Venti 13 Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 I never understood the hype of why Conan was an interesting or deep score. I listened to it but didn't take anything from it, especially no interesting themes.I think E.T. is one of the best soundtracks of all time, a lot better-conceived than other soundtracks than people would probably give it credit for.Composers get a strong influence from the film when writing, esp if it's a positive one, but like video game soundtracks there is added hype about the soundtrack or any aspects of the title if it's good as a whole. Sometimes the music is not that good but the film is. I struggle with this daily when titles from my past give me great memories but the music might not be so great as I think it is, or visa versa the music is great but it doesn't give me the full stimulation of a scene (which is integral to think about in writing for titles.) I think putting different liked music to liked titles is something that can be done and it might be worth it to see where it takes you, especially in asking yourself how the music changed and what it needs to feel more complete. Important composer questions. What feels out of place at first is learned with time.
indy4 160 Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 In celebration of E.T.'s 30th anniversary, my analysis of these score has been published on FSM Online. http://filmscoremonthly.com/daily/article.cfm/articleID/6832/Next-FSM-ONLINE-Issue-Is-Live!/indy4 - who thinks E.T. was the best score of 1982, although Wrath of Khan and Poltergiest are good too.
Naïve Old Fart 13,025 Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 If I had had my way, it would have been a 4-way tie between "E.T.", "The Thing", "Poltergeist", and "Blade Runner".Sometimes, the significance of a score can "grow" on you. Case-in point: "The Thing". Other scores just grab you by the throat form the moment that you hear them. No matter how good a score sounds on the c.d., in the concert halls (or even in the shopping malls!), etc. its effectivness is governed by how well it serves the film, which is why I do not think that Academy promo c.d.s should be given out: if you want to know how good a score is, go and see the film that it supports, and do not sit on your ass listening to it at home!"E.T." clearly served the film it was composed for, and the AMPAS thought so, too.I don't like award ceremonies, any more. I am not in competetion with anyone in my life, and I don't think that an art form that, at its heart is rather purile (or, should I say; has become purile), should be given so much importence. Like Worf once said: "If winning is not important, why keep score?".The "achievements" of the score for "E.T." are there for all to see, and hear, whether it deserved to win an award, or not. What should have won over "E.T."? Absolutely nothing.
Brónach 1,330 Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 I would tolerate Conan winning over it. I love it enough to refuse to see the film.
Wojo 2,458 Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 I like how all these "pro-ET" arguments strengthen the position of their opinions by putting Conan down. If this almost political attitude gives you a warm fuzzy, go for it. I just know that I listen to Conan a lot more than I listen to ET or even want to. Don't really care about anyone else there.
Brónach 1,330 Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 I don't understand how some people manage to avoid simply drooling at Conan the Barbarian.[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIcgqHvGmH0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJFmAsoNzOM
Wojo 2,458 Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 The score is pure adrenaline incarnate, easily the most iconic of Poledouris' career, and IMHO the greatest score of any Schwarzenegger movie, even over Predator and Total Recall.If I had to pick between Conan the Barbarian and all of The Lord of the Rings...high adventure rules the day.But ET's a cute score, too.
JoeinAR 1,957 Posted June 25, 2012 Author Posted June 25, 2012 Conan is a great epic score. I love it. I don't think it's as good as ET but I think it has a strong case to be made for being Oscar worthy.
Wojo 2,458 Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 "Oscar worthy" is only as good as the competition it's up against.Does Conan win in 1982? No. Nothing beats the juggernaut of E.T. The tears running down the faces of the voters during Adventures on Earth seals the deal.But could Conan win in 1981? Probably not; if even ROTLA couldn't beat Chariots of Fire, throw rational thought out the window.Could Conan win in any non-Schindler's List year of the 90s or later? One would hope that Conan would have beaten Gladiator, from one sword and sandals epic to another.Who knows.---Somebody should seed a bracket of all the Oscar winning scores -- and throw in some mid-majors of best runners-up from each year that didn't win, like Raiders, Empire, Superman -- and let 'em duke it out on the hardwood.
JoeinAR 1,957 Posted June 25, 2012 Author Posted June 25, 2012 1991-2000No Chaac, the 90's are from 90 to 99.
Cantus Venti 13 Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 I don't understand how some people manage to avoid simply drooling at Conan the Barbarian.!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIcgqHvGmH0!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJFmAsoNzOM!I listened to it again. Despite a sense of appreciation I might have somewhere for it, the critiques are that I think it sounds a lot more ordinary than E.T. The continuous simple blocked chords with no melodic form or rhythm to it, no real organized themes sort of like a jumble of tones that can be interesting at times but lacks identity, due to too much harmonic variation but not enough rhythmic (which is 90% of what similar scores are like) and with the music alone not enough intent or focus. The harmony in the score is not as complex nor formed in a sense of pulling you in using patterns and key notes or motifs in specific places, they seem more flat, random and the dynamics are all around simple (like I'm saying John Williams is hard to beat because he's an engineer putting meticulous thought into everything and seems to know really well where he wants it to go. If competing against him the music should strive to have it all and feel like it does.) The score gives an adventurous feeling and adds a lot to the movie, and the orchestration is fine for the score itself, but would need more work to perform the E.T. score with the same unique emotionality that it requires. I think the problem here with people and composers, including myself, is that we often are pleased by the sounds coming from simpler music but we don't have a strong enough idea what we're looking for in the grander scheme. John Williams has these senses and standards he keeps to himself about the form that music should take and it seems to show.
Brónach 1,330 Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 1991-2000No Chaac, the 90's are from 90 to 99.I know what you mean, but the calendar is the way it is: stupid.In a sense, it's just the same count, just with the name of one year displaced.
JoeinAR 1,957 Posted June 25, 2012 Author Posted June 25, 2012 1991-2000No Chaac, the 90's are from 90 to 99.I know what you mean, but the calendar is the way it is: stupid.In a sense, it's just the same count, just with the name of one year displaced.yes a decade can be any 10 years, however the 90's, 80's, 70's etc always start with that first year. A century starts in 1 however and ends in 0
Wojo 2,458 Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?
indy4 160 Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 So the 1900s start with 1901? No, but the 20th century starts in 1901.
Cantus Venti 13 Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Screw whoever thought it would be cool to number the centuries. We don't say we're on our 30th year if we're 29, we say we're 29. I personally like the former way better but culture is culture, like the music system. It's set and done with.
Wojo 2,458 Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 We don't say we're on our 30th year if we're 29, we say we're 29.Who is "we?" I had class with a gentleman from Saudi Arabia who did in fact say that after his 24th birthday, he was entering his 25th year of life.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now