charlesk

That was great Matrix Reloaded had only one (1) technically interesting moment: in the motorcycle chase, when the camera follow it going under incoming trucks. I always wanted to do this in a movie. The rest of it is a mess of pop-trash (or should I say "poop-trash"?). From the ok-now-they-are-not-so-cool-anymore dark designer glasses-that-never-fall, and clothes that look like the Vatican launched his Winter Collection meets Leather Coat Big Factory Outlet Sale, to the totally not-just-pointless-but-also-counter-productive-for-the-plot sequences of the orgiastic dance party, the boring hundred to one gratuitous display of obvious CGI Neo vs. obvious CGI Agent Smith until Neo and the audience got tired and he decided to fly away, and the procession of lame, plain, superfluous characters from which not other than the protagonist, Neo, is the absolute worst. Now he not only can fly, but he can also relive people. Why should we fear for him? Why should we care for what it happens to him? As for the 'amazing', 'intellectual', 'polemic' philosophical references that 'astonished' the fans of this movie, it's just an elemental, segmented and vane interpretation of concepts that have been discussed in philosophy for ages. Please read and don't be dumbfounded by trash.

But he is not memorable. Non of Lois and Clark crew are. ---------------- Alex Cremers I wasn't talking about the actor, I was talking about the character. A Luthor in the style of the one in Lois & Clark played in a movie by a Hackman, Nicholson, Liam Neeson, Patrick Stewart would be memorable, especially if it is granted a backstory, a good arc development and well thought dialogue (things that are absent in both the series and the movie).

Please, listen to them both. This question is insulting for both composers and makes you look superficial when you are really not. They are masterpieces both of them, plainly amazing. Same response as above I respect Menken, I respect you more, but these are Verdi and Mozart we are talking about.

There used to be a site called www.thesoundsite.net with a huge list of soundfonts available. Now I can't see it anymore. If anyone knows where it is now, please tell. Among lots of trash, I could find some believable horns and solo strings. I'm still looking for full strings, and strings in martelatto, con legno and marcatto, and doing harmonics.

Danny Elfman is exploiting in Hulk the harmonic idea he used for the Red Dragon theme, which is great, combined with this far more interesting rythmic and percussive ideas that he pioneered in Planet of the Apes. In the process, he is including new sounds and textures in a very tasteful way, in my opinion. I don't think his focus is in 'themes' right now, and this is not bad, although I do agree that traditionally a superhero movie demands a recognizable theme. I think his Planet of Apes and Red Dragon incarnations of his new ideas delivered more recognizable motifs than the later Spiderman and Hulk. But maybe this wasn't the approach he was asked for.

Oh, I can't believe I'm doing this... But after reading Ross' post, me, besides being of the generation that saw Superman as a teenager, I do agree with him. The only thing I don't agree is that it was set in the fifties; no it wasn't, it was set in present time when I saw it. And Chris Reeve was well built on those day's standards for Superman. Now aesthetics have changed, but this is not a flaw. About Clark Kent: He's an idiot. I never understood why he had to act differently. Superman is not a big chatter, but he is confident and intelligent. Why when being Clark Kent he had to be an idiot, I don't know. Superman is the only superhero with multiple personalities. Batman is the same person with or without mask, Spiderman is the same person, even Hulk is the same compasionate guy even when he transforms. The Clark Kent thing is only his private persona, there is no reason to make him a jerk. About Lois Lane: Completely agree, not pretty, not even in the standars of that day. But judging by appearance would be unfair, so this doesn't matter as much as the fact that she was a lousy actress. About she being the super reporter they made of her in the series, well, I'm not sure if in the original concept she was so good at all. Maybe they made her an idiot to harmonize with the fact that she couldn't recognize a person when he wears glasses. But in any case, she was the most vane and boring character ever made. About Luthor: I respect Gene Hackman. The approach at that time was more innocent. The evil, dark Luthor that is proud of his baldness came in the animated series later on. The Luthor of Lois & Clark is far more interesting, a charming person who is right and coherent in his own ambition, althought his plans push the limits of morals and ethics, and that makes him evil; believable evil. But I call this difference between the old and new Luthor characters 'evolution'; both are right. What was wrong, is that Gene Hackman's Luthor wasn't threatening. If the opposing forces in a movie are not threatening, you have no emotional involvement from the audience in the story. An evil character can be made funny, but he always have to be threatening, you should be able to believe that he could kill the hero anytime. Not even when I saw the movie in theaters I believed he could. The Finale: can't agree more. Bringing a 'go back in time' thing for a finale, is a modern way of Deus Ex Machina. I wished I could go back in time to forget the whole movie after seeying that. About the sequence when Superman is rescued by somebody else, you can use these in the movies, at the beginning, in the first or second acts, but never as the resolution of the third and last. The hero must overcome his enemy by the means of a change, and the change must come from inside (Ross, this is Robert McKee speaking ). What I see in Ross' post is the demand of the youth for more deep, meaningful, real, smart superheroes, to serve as role models for a more demanding, hard, realistic times. Honestly, I need better superheros too. Thanks for your post, Ross.

Nice! Post the samples!

Gregory Peck was amazing in The Omen, The Scarlet and the Black and The Boys from Brazil. Great actor. I wish he did more stuff in his old days.

And ripping off Horner is...........bad? I do love Universal's theme most than any other studio, even more than fox fanfarre. Dreamworks logo theme sound like that of an independent studio company. I don't like the approach.

No, I don't like him, he is too brassy. Jane Eyre? Too stringy. Hook? Too tonal. Images? Too atonal. CMIYC? Too jazzy. Paper Chase? Too classic. CE3K? too contemporary. Lost World? Too drummy. MR? Too cold. ET? Too warm... He's just too much of everything...

Yoda had a plastic surgery after the Clone Wars. He made the war insurance to pay for it. That made him look younger, but as seen in ESB, he lost some muscle motion and his face looks more like rubber.

This is going to a "jump to hyperspace" just like the old Falcon used to make: a failure. I'm not at the least interested, thanks.

To Thornfield isn't in the movie??? It's one of my favorites! It has a contemporary style with classic instrumentation that drives me nuts. The horns are little but they are perfect. This track is one of the most fun to listen to, along with Scherzo for Motorcycle and Asteroid field. I agree that Jane Eyre is a great example that Williams is a master with and without brass. Williams imitation of old classic style in Festivity at Thornfield is exquisite too. In Thwarted Wedding, Williams departs and tries atonalism in a very scaring effect. This soundtrack is fabulous.

Comparing Star Wars score with ESB score is like comparing a Mahler symphony with a Shostakovich one. One is in romantic style, the other is modern. You may like one style over the other, but we cannot compare side by side these things. You can't say Shostakovich is bad because he doesn't have Mahler's romantic style. I like Star Wars score for its operatic, romantic style, and I get exhilarated with the 20th brutality of the modernist ESB. Williams work in both movies is superb, and he should have won an Oscar for both. Both scores redefined how film scores were seen; Star Wars redefined the score as a protagonist, and Empire redefined the limits of orchestration and virtuosism in film music. I pretty much believe that other film composers where blown away with the virtuosism of Empire, and they are trying to imitate it since then. As for the ESB movie itself, is one of the more balanced ones, marvelously dealing with the multiple plots and alternating action with great content and character development. It also has one of the most amazing turning points in cinema.

For the educated, it may be a matter of laugh. For the non-educated, they read it as truth. The reporter is not only stating that Williams only supervised the first two scores, but also in his tone of "now he is actually writing it", can be read as a little bit of irony that is insulting, for me and Williams. I expect an apology from the Globe. Just imagine that you did two big projects, and then you are going for your third one, and you read in a reputed newspaper that you only supervised the first two.

Where, where, where, where???? Here's my credit card number !

You are lazy today, huh? here it is: http://www.theforce.net/episode2/index.shtml#21044 I think the word 'today' is redundant in this case.

Err...uhmm....another Star Wars related thread that has gone controversial.... why I'm not surprised?

Have you noticed that when Williams talks about his happy director collaborations he mentions Chris Columbus, Oliver Stone, Spielberg, but he DOESN'T mention Lucas???

Lucas will release this 2-CD Edition whenever he pleases in the future and he feels that he could suck a little more money from the fans he got thanks to the brief flash of inspiration that he got at one time in his life, and thanks to the great help of Harrison Ford, John Williams, Steven Spielberg, Irvin Kershner, Paul Hirsch, Lawrence Kasdan, etc. When he does, he will insult again both Williams and his fans with his own crappy 'musical' interpretation of how Williams' music should be edited. Lucas is resented that people like Williams and Spielberg have had ups and downs, but they are still loved, and that people kind of like more Lucas because of his collaborations with them than for himself.

No! Not another CGI remake. Hey, I'm a computer engineer and this benefits my industry, and I still disagree of doing everything again just for using CGI. And as for Howard Shore, this is living proof that most filmcomposer newcomers are trying to hard to come up with originality, rich and variated orchestrations, etc, etc. Just make good partnerships and a budget to have a 100-piece orchestra and 100-choir, just to make them play chords... add a lot of reverb, and that's it.

Oops, I guess Charlie doesn't like to be mentioned along with people with names like the "Rent girl" and the "Kneel guy".... Although I should feel fortunate that my name wasn't altered... As glad as you are accepting this 'award', I think I speak for all your benefactors that we support you because we want you (expect you!) to succeed. So get out there and move your ass! (not literally, for a change)

At least Wael is not into leather-bears.... er.....uhm....you are not, Wael, are you?

Oh, man, this thread has become so.....uhmm......nerd! I haven't seen the movie yet, but it seems like this one is again about the theory of determinism, and that freedom of choice is just a convenient 'illusion'. It seems like they are telling us that God created us to provide him with 'power', while we keep producing energy thanks to the 'happiness' that the illusion of having freedom of choice gives us. I'll have to see it then....

Oh, Alex North's Cleopatra.... topic closed!!!