Samuel Walters

Not sure about threads here, but this site is fairly comprehensive. In any case, it represents a ton of work and is worth looking at.

Hey me too! Are you talking about New York City, October 2010? Indeed! Hey that's awesome! Is there an album of pictures from that dinner somewhere? I sat with John Takis and Jim Ware! Unfortunately, no ... not that I'm aware of. I know I took more photos when I was there, but I can't for the life of me remember what happened to the files (I do have a few others from the B&N book signing that preceded the dinner, but that's the extent of my photos). If a collection exists anywhere, I'm not aware of it. Still, it was a wonderful experience all-'round. Howard was, as I remember, quiet and unassuming - and yet very accommodating and willing to answer questions and chat. Doug was, of course, quite gregarious. Despite the lack of photos, I have nothing but very fond memories. Small world, though, eh? Very cool that you were there, too!

Hey me too! Are you talking about New York City, October 2010? Indeed!

Howard Shore. Had dinner with him (and Doug Adams) and about a dozen other very fortunate guests a few years back.

I disagree. As much as it is possible to infer such things, I do think PJ was trying his best to make an artful adaptation of The Hobbit - one that would be a part of his LOTR films. And I believe he genuinely felt that three films would, artistically, better represent the story he was (artistically) trying to tell. However: This is certainly a reasonable explanation for why, at times (perhaps moreso for others than myself), the Hobbit films feel so discordant with the LOTR films. Some of the additions (Tauriel) work very well. But others (Azog) they don't mesh particularly well with the source material. And perhaps PJ was trying to do too much here: adapt (the main Hobbit story) and expand (the White Council) and improvise (Tauriel & Azog). But (generally speaking), I don't think the intention here was anything other than making these movies the best that they could be. I do think, however, the production process was flawed - starting with the legal wrangling between PJ and New Line, then continuing to how long it took to greenlight the films, to the abrupt transition from GDT to PJ, to PJ's illness delaying the start of filming, to the decision to expand from two films to three (after principle photography had completed). Adding all of this to an already-established, ill-advised propensity to overly embellish Tolkien's tale, is the most likely reason why these films don't quite reach their potential. And yet, given all of these factors, I think the results are pretty damned good - even if they aren't at the same stratospheric level as LOTR. And I, for one, would hesitate to assign nefarious motivations (i.e. greed) to PJ, particularly in the absence of any explicit evidence to that effect. Additionally, I'd say (admittedly based purely on my own speculation and biases) that the final result of three films is better than what we would have received with just two films.

Y'know . . . I think "hate" is probably too strong a word. For the most part, we're airing our frustration on how the movies played out as opposed to how they easily could've played out, had they followed more in the mold of LOTR. And it's a little galling to see what some money and success can do to people who've proven their talents as filmmakers in the past. We pine for what might've been, if it weren't for the indulgent excesses of big-time movie makers. But I don't hate the movies. I enjoyed them, a lot at times, and I would much rather have them than not have them, if that makes sense. It makes perfect sense, actually. And, in truth, I was being just a *wee* bit hyperbolic with my "hate" comment (as evidenced by my subsequent parenthetical statement). As much as I thoroughly enjoy all three Hobbit films, I have no problem acknowledging their flaws, particularly in comparison to LOTR. To wit: I certainly agree with this premise: That starting off, conceptually, with two films, and then expanding to three films, is a major factor in the flaws we across all three films. PJ has always been at his best when adapting Tolkien's story, rather than improvising his own material (e.g. Aragorn's dive over a cliff in TTT). However ... given the 20/20 vision of hindsight, had I been in the meeting room to decide whether or not to expand to three films ... I'd *still* give my unequivocal support. Three flawed-yet-more-complete films, to me anyway, are preferable, to two tighter-yet-lacking-in-content films. Especially when the score is factored in. Long story short: To me, the additional material - time spent in Middle Earth, character development, music from Howard Shore, etc. - far outweighs the (very real) drawbacks introduced by expanding from two, to three films.

I can't get onboard with the Hobbit Hate (well, zest for criticism, at any rate). Sure, the films have their flaws. But I thoroughly enjoyed each of them. As such, I think the decision to expand from two to three films was a perfectly fine idea. Yeah, we got some filler ... but that's balanced with content I'm sure would have been left on the cutting room floor. As for Potter ... PoA remains my fave - both as a film and a score. It's closely followed by TDH, pt. 1, HBP and SS.

Finally got How To Train Your Dragon, just to see what all the hubub was about. It's a lot of fun to listen to!

Ha! I'm thrilled to see someone else not only admit to owning the game, but playing and enjoying it, too. Honestly, the music to that game is what truly got me into film scores. I just had to own all the cues I kept hearing over and over and over and ...

Thanks for the additional info (I didn't realize their site had forums for more specific updates - musta missed a link somewhere). I kinda wish I'd pulled the trigger on the order a bit quicker ... but I'm thrilled that I'll be getting a copy. :cool:

I ordered Clash of the Titans today, but the site said the item was "Sold Out" and would be "back in stock" in FOUR weeks. Ugh. Delayed gratification! I'm really looking forward to it, though. Love the score to begin with, and this looks like a release that's worth owning.

I tend to agree that Inception (both the film and the score) is overrated. The film itself has a *lot* going on ... but the mindless slow-mo action sequences just when the film should be getting interesting kills the overall effect for me. And I agree with Chuck that Zimmer's score works very well in the film, but as a soundtrack album ... not so much. As for Potter vs. Narnia soundtracks, I give the nod to Potter. VotDT certainly is much more grandiose, which I like, but it feels like more style than substance to me. DH1 has more substance than style and, comparatively speaking, is much more engaging to listen to.

I'm partial to George C. Scott's A Christmas Carol -- but I suspect that's a nostalgia thing. The gold standard remains The Grinch Who Stole Christmas cartoon.

Everything about Dumbledore's death -- his plea to Severus, his arm-flailing fall, the music -- in HBP was just plain off ... very anticlimactic. And for the most part, I like both the HBP film and score.

Star Trek (2009) - Deluxe Edition