Uni

NO! Get out, veteran. JK, of course. It's been a LONG time since we chatted in this thread. And it's kind of sad that two of its members have been gone for a while. Too long. I suppose this "new era" rising up is what's keeping the board going, which is a great thing; still, it's sad that a lot of the veterans don't connect like they once did. Oh, well....:cry: And Ren--go ahead and read the Potter books again. Give yourself a little distance before undergoing the Quest again. When you come back to it, if you remember the general direction of things but can't quite recall every detail, then you'll have a blast with it. - Uni....who means to read Goblet again himself before June rolls around....

My pet guess on the use of "Duel of the Fates" for Anakin's little cruise in AOTC--worth as much (or as little) as anyone's theories on any of this stuff: At least one common link between the those passages in both films is the presence of one of Palpatine's pupils--at least potentially (jeez....try some alliteration for a change....:roll:). Anakin may not yet be a Sith apprentice, but it's in this scene that he allows his anger and hatred to take over and he truly takes the first step down the path of the Dark Side. As a direct result of where his emotions take him (even faster than that speeder bike), he'll eventually take the cowl under Palpatine's wing--and effectively take Darth Maul's place. That may or may not be the real reasoning behind the music, but it seems appropriate enough. - Uni

Are veterans allowed to jump in with the "new era" crowd...? Congratulations, Ren. It's nice to know the movies aren't dissuading people from reading (and enjoying) the books. I had the same reaction when I read it some 15 years ago. You do feel different, changed, as though you went through the adventure right alongside the characters. There aren't many books out there capable of that sort of connection with their audience. I'm impressed that you went straight through the appendices, too; it wasn't until my second or third reading that I undertook all that. But they do help you see how Tolkien wasn't just writing a stand-alone novel. It's only a small part of a much bigger tale. Give it a year or so, then read them again. The second time is just as much fun (for different reasons). - Uni

*pointing* I find your lack of faith....disturbing.... - Uni

Picard: "Your honor, Starfleet was founded to seek out new life....well, there it sits!" Timing is everything....when I found this thread, I'd only a few days earlier been thinking about some of the great lines from the first season of Cheers. A few that came to mind: From the pilot episode: Diane: Excuse me....where is your bathroom? Coach: Upstairs next to my bedroom. Coach: You can call me Red. That's what my old team used to call me. Diane: Because your hair was red? Coach: No ma'am, because I read a book. From later episodes: Diane: I was up until two in the morning finishing off The Brothers Karamozov. Sam: Gee, I hope they thanked you for it.... Coach: I once thought of becoming a priest. Young man (entering priesthood): Really? Are you religious? Coach: No, I just thought it would be kind of a quiet, peaceful lifestyle. Young man: Well, allow me to dispell your misconceptions. Coach (dropping to one knee, covering his head): Oh, thank you father.... Coach: Want a beer, Norm? Norm: Does a rag doll have cloth knobs? - Uni

I'll need another post for this one.... Concerning the end of The Lord of the Rings (spoilers follow, but most of it's already been spoiled anyway, so....): This whole idea about Sauron's appearance for the climax at Mount Doom misses the point entirely. It would have sold short both the immediate story (LOTR) and the epic tapestry of Middle Earth as a whole. There are several reasons for this, but two stand out: - Sauron was not your everyday, black hat/moustache-twirling villain. He's an ancient character, once the leftenant of the real evil power in ME in the person of Morgoth (as the elves called him; he was Melkor in the beginning, one of the Ainur, the crafters of the world). Sauron of old was a shape-changer, known as the Lord of Werewolves, and held the fortress of Angband during the centuries his master was chained by the Valar. He was the chief conspirator in the fall of Numenor, and deceived the elves of Eregion into shaping the Rings of Power. He was a central figure throughout Tolkien's epic history. Tolkien had been writing that history since lying in a military hospital in Birmingham in 1916, and would continue his work until his death in 1973 (the work was published by his son as The Silmarillion following his passing). That vast mythology was his real passion; the Rings trilogy was woven into it, and though it would become the front door for most people who enter his world, in truth it was a secondary work. (It was only on a whim that he decided to set The Hobbit, a story he'd been telling his children, in the realm of Middle Earth, and Rings began as a larkish sequel to that children's story.) All that to say that Sauron's lack of form (other than the Red Eye) had been established more than 3,000 years earlier by events greater than are contained in LOTR. After all that, to have him march out with black cloak swirling for some face-to-face confrontation with the hobbits would have been ludicrous. It would throw to the wind everything that had been engineered to that point, and would (honestly) have ruined the story. It's a bit like saying that Lucas should never have made Vader Luke's father, that it would have been much better and more exciting if Luke had just cut the villain's head off at the end and been done with it. That idea (on an altogether different scale, of course, but the analogy fits) erases all understanding of what's gone before, everything that brought the saga to it's dramatic ending, and cheapens the story Lucas wanted to tell. To suggest that Tolkien misstepped here (as though he was just "blocked" that day) is to totally disregard the bulk of his lifetime's work. And anyway, as the story itself says time and again, the hobbits aren't there to battle Sauron; the whole idea is to prevent his return to tangible form. For all the ill the Dark Lord wreaks in the War of the Ring, he does so only as a rear-echelon general of sorts, the mind behind the madness. If he'd gotten hold of the Ring, he would've been restored to his full power and old form and enslaved the world without any real effort. It would have been over, regardless of any further battles or wars or whatnot. The hobbits were out to stop that, not to defeat Sauron in a contest of wills or strength. - That alternate ending would also have missed the crucial conclusion of the plotline that was as important as the destruction of the Ring itself. For Frodo, the quest of Mordor had become more than just a means to undo Sauron's power; it was a journey of redemption for a wretched but sympathetic character whom he still hoped to bring back into the light. As much as he wanted the Ring destroyed, he also wanted to rescue Gollum. What happens at Mount Doom justifies all the apparently questionable times Smeagol's life has been spared in the past, and does in fact serve as an ultimate redemption in itself. Peter S. Beagle, one of the great scholars of Tolkien's works, touches on this in his essay "Tolkien's Magic Ring": Bilbo and Sam and many others have chances to kill him, but each time the idea of his suffering, vaguely as they may conceive it (and it takes someone who has borne the Ring, even for a little while, to understand Gollum's agony), prevents them; and so he lives to play out his part in the story of the Ring. In the end he haunts the imagination perhaps more than any other character in The Lord of the Rings, which is fitting, for he was already a ghost when the story began. To have shorn things down to a simple fencing match with Sauron at the end would have undermined one of the most vital elements of the story. However....I can't really blame some of you for feeling the way you do. Interestingly, I remember experiencing something of the same sentiment after my own first reading of the story. Modern literature and cinema have conditioned us to expect the players at the top of the Good and Evil lists to cross swords in the end; that's our definition of climax (well, the literary definition, anyway....:roll:). And that wasn't the only thing that felt a little skewed the first time through; when this subject first came up, I thought the ending you were talking about was the scouring of the Shire (at the end end of the book). That didn't feel right either. I was a little discouraged with it at the time, but when I read it again, knowing what was coming (and what Tolkien intended in taking that course), it felt perfect. That's the thing....this book has to be read multiple times to really begin to grasp the underlying meanings and purposes Tolkien was reaching for. The plus is that this is a story that's truly as good the second and subsequent times through as the first. (I remember feeling an overwhelming sense of intoxication the night I read for the second time about the hobbits' journey through the Marish and their conversation at Crickhollow. The sense of knowing what was ahead made me, for some reason, absolutely giddy.) And it's one of the few books that can stand up to multiple readings. Beagle again hit it right on the head when he says: It will bear the mind's handling, and it is a book that will acquire an individual patina in each mind that takes it up, like a much-caressed pocket stone or piece of wood. At times, always knowing that I didn't write it, I feel like I did. I've read the work ten complete times (not counting the browsing I did for the project I did in conjunction with it), and each time--without exception--I found something in it I'd never seen before, some subtle nuance of description or dialogue that added a detail to the already-magnificent canvas. So if the ending didn't feel quite right the first time through, give it another go. I can almost guarantee that you'll come away with a different impression of the outcome. - Uni....who in doing this remembered that he owes Stefan a review of The Two Towers....

Funny....it was just a couple of weeks ago that my eight-year-old son asked if he could watch Star Wars again. Since I hadn't seen the first one since before the release of SE, I thought I'd join him (we were able to view the original version through the use of an ancient form of technology called a "VCR"). I wondered how the prequels would affect things, and even wondered if I had outgrown it to some extent after all these years. In short....I was enthralled. I don't know if it was the recurrance of the emotions I grew up with obliterating my objectivity, or if, even after a quarter-century, it still personifies the age-old cliche of the "timeless classic," but I couldn't help but get caught up in it. I get the feeling the latter is the more likely. There is a spirit in that movie (and in its two sequels) that transcends the simple medium of film. It's a mythology for our age (or at least for the generation before this one). There's no denying the goofiness of much of it; I've been one of the most vocal in throttling Lucas as a writer, and seeing his first effort did nothing to improve my view on that count. (The movie also had a slightly dated look, suffering from the same blight that struck Star Trek: The Motion Picture, when the entire universe was inexplicably overcome by an attack of the 70's). But once upon a time, he was a better storyteller. I have to agree with all those who have pointed out the irony that one of his downfalls has been the success of the films. Though it doesn't look it, Star Wars was another Fitzcaraldo or Apocolypse Now in its time in that the story on the screen was an art-imitating-life reflection of what was really happening behind the scenes: a small group of guerilla filmmakers taking on the film studio Empire. Back then, the desperation of the "rebels" bubbled to the top, giving the slick presentation a grittier edge and a sense of urgency that energized the whole thing. A touch of that was missing in the films that followed, but for the most part the trilogy never lost that edge. Then Lucas allowed fifteen years to pass, and forgot his roots (and his own advice, too, when he said that "a special effect without a story is a pretty dull thing."). Now he has the luxury of money, time, and power. In short, he's founded an Empire of his own, adopting many of the attitudes he once labored to defy. Nowadays he's trying to assume the austere voice of a higher level of bard, reciting his tales with so much reverence and gravity that they've become antiseptic, untouchable. He's lost his connection with the audience. That transcendent spirit is gone. Watching Star Wars: A New Hope (there's a good compromise--use both titles), I began seeing all the little things that made it superior to the newer visions. I'm not going to go into each one here, but the greater part of it has to do with the choice of perspective. Star Wars is about the blue collar fighting a greater enemy: a backwoods farm boy, an everyman rogue, the old sage, a girl struggling with responsibilities too heavy for her slim shoulders; we can understand and relate to these people. Politicians and masters of ancient, mysterious arts are less likely to draw the cheers of an adventure-seeking crowd. Hmm....I'm trying to lay out something that isn't entirely tangible here, and suppose I can't really defend it without laying out extensive examples (maybe later; I'm not in the mood). All I can say is that, while the art and craft of filmmaking may have improved in the subsequent years, and that Empire and Jedi were great undertakings in themselves, Star Wars deserves its place as one of the greatest films of all time. (Not that that's what you were doing, Beowulf; you stated your opinion in such a way that invited discussion, not challenged debate, and I'm not sure why some of the spit-'n'-fire of this thread was necessary.) - Uni P.S....Something else that's renewed the spirit of SW for me recently was a return to the trilogy of Timothy Zahn books (starting with Heir to the Empire). If you haven't read them yet, they're a must for any Star Wars fan, recreating the spirit and adventure of the original trilogy in spectacular form, while being brilliantly written books in their own right.

I just think it's hilarious that someone thought it interesting or informative to offer this poll on a John Williams website. It's like getting stopped in a mall by one of those annoying people with a clipboard and being asked if I like to breathe. - Uni

What the hell?!? Congratulations, you're Tangerine Dream! You're the ultimate leech, a suck-on artist who excels at nothing more than replacing other people and destroying things that would otherwise have been perfectly fine if not for your influence. The only reason people come to you for anything is because they can't get anyone else to do it--and everyone hates you for doing it instead of someone more qualified! No one knows where you came from or what you're doing here, and nearly everyone is hoping you'll kiss off soon. You've submarined the great Jerry Goldsmith's score for Legend, and "scored" (whatever!) such films as Thief, umm....uhhh....well, frankly, aside from that crap hardly anyone remembers just what you've done, so....anyway.... :cry: Just kidding....I got Jerry Goldsmith. That's a very creative little exercise....very cool. - Uni

Uni's Response....or: How crass would an average article be without a basic comprehension of its subject? I had to grin while I was reading this. There's really nothing to get that worked up over; it's a simple case of ignorance, coupled with the sort of self-congratulatory nepotism that comes with too many summers at Lake Wobegone-wherever sharing marshmallows and cocoa with a famous person. Shortly after leaving the realm of the ludicrous (saying that all Williams scores sound alike), we enter the realm of the hilarious (praising Michael Kamen for his ingenious command of variety). I mean, of all the composers to personify the gauntlet of originality thrown at Williams's feet--Michael Kamen? To apply the same litmus test she seemed to think so revealing: Listen to Robin Hood; then take a sampling of The Three Musketeers. (While you're at it, spin a little Igor Stravinsky, and you'll discover the fountain of Kamen's inspiriation.) Even while listening to a certain music teacher's Opus, I had to lean over and whisper to my wife: "Mr. Holland--Prince of Thieves." The Die Hard/Lethal Weapon connection's already been hit on....but then, we're well on the way to clearing things up anyway. And just how far does she expect to go in establishing her premise by setting an Oscar nomination counts and Olympic collaborations as the battlefield...? Don't get me wrong; I do think Kamen's a respectable composer, and I like his work. But by attempting to add the "-angelo" to the end of Michael's name, she's done most of our work for us. Nobody with an ounce of filmusic understanding is going to buy what she's trying to sell. But then, she seems to think she's the only one with any comprehension of the art form. To whit: - The rest is history -- but I warn you, the history of music in film isn't a well-known topic. Can you come up with the name of last year's Oscar-winner for Best Score? Actually, I can give you the last ten, if you'd like. I warn you in return that film music history is not quite the Illuminati-privileged subject you seem to think it is. (I'll choose to ignore the subtle insult to Howard Shore.) - Can you name ANY composer who has received an Academy Award other than John Williams? (Hint: I've written about each of the last few Academy Award Winning composers in this column, well before they received their awards.) Ibid. (Hint: Given the contents of your current article, I'll withhold my congratulations on your past eroicas until I see just what you wrote about them.) And yes, that little bit about Hook was a screamer, demonstrating that she gave almost no forethought to the article before diving in (suddenly remembering an obscure point of reference she doesn't understand to begin with and that subsequently submarines her own point is kind of a dead giveaway). This whole thing struck a particularly ironic chord with me, because I've recently been stuck on the second CD in the Williams Greatest Hits collection. While listening to it a couple of weeks ago, something about it just awed me; I was taken in anew by the vastness of this man's creative drive--and the astounding variety of sound and emotion he's able to accomplish. What I heard--and what this woman has never experienced for herself--was the gut-wrenching passion of Born on the Fourth of July, the towering triumph of Summon the Heroes, the piercing grief of Schindler's List, the graceful melancholy of Stepmom, the wicked power of Duel of the Fates, the epic gravity of Seven Years in Tibet, the quiet honor of Saving Private Ryan....and so on. To say that any of these is even a remote facsimile of any Indy score is....is the final condemnation of her own laurels as a conoisseur of the fine art and craft of modern film scoring. Maybe if her research had extended beyond what lay in simple view of her glazed eyes....("There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your Saturday-afternoon matinee reruns....") (While I had to comment, though--if for no other reason than the pure joy of it--I don't see any point in responding personally. I literally believe she's in no frame of mind to comprehend the central thrust of these concepts, let alone their finer nuances. Let well enough alone; no reason to ruin her future summer vacations.) - Uni

Well....I was hoping to encourage some of those members who frown on their own lack of education or expository skill to give it a go anyway, so we'd have more voices in the choir; but your point, aptly-stated and reasonable as it is, is well taken. Speaking of which....your own writing has improved, Alan. You should try your hand at a review.... - Uni

A few comments and impressions: - First and foremost....thank you, Joe. What a pleasure it's been to take part in this, to see everyone taking part, without having to worry about putting the whole thing together and dealing with a whole lot of sparring and debate (which has its place, but not here). I think it's safe to say what you've created will stand as something of a legacy on this site for a long time.... - It did not surprise me in the least to find TESB at the top of the list. Looking back over the years, I'd have to say that's the one that consistently gets the most verbal and widespread support around here. (Not my own favorite, but it was on my list....) - It's interesting how close TESB and E.T. were in the voting, but how much the first walloped the runner-up in points earned. I would take that to mean that, while both made most people's lists, E.T. did a lot more wandering through the rankings. That does surprise me. While I'd figure Empire to top the list, I'd just as easily assume E.T. would be riding hard on its tail--especially considering its recent reentry into the popular culture. Hmm. - Superman--my own vote for #1--just barely made the top 5. I'm not entirely surprised at that, either, but I figured it had a shot at least to beat out Raiders.... (But then, I had a hand in that, too, putting Raiders in my own top five....) - It's appropriate that all three Star Wars scores made the list, being pretty much the most popular "serialized" scores of all time. It is equally hilarious that neither of the prequels made even the top 15. (Stefan, you just summarized the indefinable feeling I've had about TPM from the beginning....a collection of great moments bobbing like ripe apples in tepid cider. That was right on the money, my friend.) - On the other hand....I'm also one of those who considers ROTJ to be, while a great score, the least of the trilogy--and I'm disappointed to find that it topped Close Encounters. (I had a feeling it might not make the list, but to be ousted by the likes of Jedi....apparently those Ewoks can knock just about anyone off their throne.) - Count me in as another among those who're happy to find Hook on the list--and reasonably high on it, too. That score is a lot more popular and well-appreciated than a lot of people think.... - Interesting shift....after the top 5, we head to the early 90's for three, then back to the old days again for the last two. That's wild, how the periods cling together like that. - Last Crusade beat Temple of Doom...? - I'm absolutely flattened that A.I. scored so high. As much as people have supported Empire, they've been just as quick and adamant to squash Williams's only jaunt with Kubrickian material. Where'd this sudden influx of support come from...? - Finally....thank you, Scissorhands, for speaking out on behalf of the vastly underappreciated ocean of brilliance represented in some of Williams's "alternative" scores. Someone has to stand up for those orphans.... As for that Filmtracks list, it seems too touch-and-go to have a continually updating list of favorites, something that can too easily be affected by stray moods or sudden discovery of an interesting theme (without really exploring a whole score). I mean, c'mon....Angela's Ashes and Stepmom? Naw....one list, for all time. That's the way to truly judge where things stand. - Uni

Musical education is hardly a requirement for writing a competent review of a film score. In fact, I'd say that while commentary on the finer details of a score's technical attributes--its use of modulation, the application of a certain meter, and the like--can be interesting and informative, its best use is simply as a supporting device for the real center of the article, the part people really want to read, which is: What did you think of the thing? How did it make you feel? How did it mesh with the film? How does it compare with the composer's past efforts? That's the key. The best score analyses don't just play Name That Theme and offer an itemized list of the instruments used in each piece; they explore the emotions of a score, and seek out (as far as speculation allows) the composer's intent, whatever underlying meaning and deeper subtexts he used as a source for his musical interpretations. (It can be a fascinating thing to come across subtler nuances the composer explored that the director himself seems to have missed...!) The important thing is to express how you felt about the work, and the means you use to do it are at your discretion. Nobody's handing out Pulitzers here; as far as this forum's concerned, each member bears the editorial weight of a world-class journalist. If I read his intentions correctly (and I hope he'll correct me if I'm off the mark here), I think Ricard is more interested in the wide range of perspectives only multiple submissions can offer. It would be great to have at least one review for each score; but how much better to have five or ten for each, allowing us to learn from so many disperate points of view? It's kinda like Joe's compilation of Top Ten lists that melded to create an overall reflection of the "corporate favorites." If only a handful had voted, the final list would be worth less, and would be far less revealing. Just as important as writing them, though, is finishing them; and until I do that for myself, I suppose I'm not really in a position to say all that much anyway. Better to write for yourself and have no public, than write for the public and have no self. - Cyril Connolly - Uni

Hope you're not gone for long, Melange....nobody adapts film quotes to posts better. - Uni

Ditto. Oh, you didn't offend. It'll take more than that. You were just speaking your mind. No, but I thought I might get it out anyway. In case anyone else wondered....but that freedom is another thing that makes this place great. - Uni

Wow....that came out of left field. But I certainly appreciate it. But don't quit, least of all on my account. You're just jealous because Uni makes more impact with 1 post every 3 months than you do in 5 months of posting 450 times a day. Actually....though I appreciate how ardently you jumped to my defense, Chris, Morn's really not too far off the mark. I do embellish quite a bit, no question about it--though I would submit that I do have my reasons. The two foremost: - I'm still using an ultra-slow computer. There's a good chunk of time wasted every time I go to load a new screen, which includes the average of four screens each time I write a post. I get an hour or so every few days (if that) to drop in and put a few cents on the table. I have neither the time nor the patience to plod through endless waves of bandwidth to throw in two- or three-word posts spiced with an emoticon or two. If I'm gonna speak up on something, I want to make it count. - Going back to the original question....part of the reason I come here is entirely selfish. This is the place I get to write for fun. The rest of the writing I have to do does require precision; I have to cut & slash, fiddle & whittle, pare it down, keep it tight. But when I'm here, I can write for the joy of it. So I cut the leash. I don't just want to express my opinion and leave it at that; part of the fun is in backing it up. I think that sort of thing leads to better discussions, too. If it was causing great distress among the general population, I would have cut back a long time ago. However, I think I've managed to garner some measure of respect around here--in spite of my gratuitous embellishments. If the worst that comes of my contributions is a little bellyaching from Morn because he has to read a little....well, I can live with that. :roll: He was right about something else, though: charlesk is one of the guys I enjoy reading, one of the best writers we have here. Try Melange Japanimation and Trumpeteer, while you're at it. So the, back again to the question....that's why I come here. Not just writing, but the writers. The people. Aside from a few who seem to find more fun in ripping apart opinions than expressing their own, this is a group I'd wanna hang with in person, given the opportunity. When I'm gone for a while, I miss this place not for the lost writing opportunities, but for the lost time with friends. - Uni

I believe that listing 10 favorite scores is identical to saying that you believe that these are the 10 best scores John Williams has written. I completely disagree, at least so far as my own definition of "favorite" applies. In choosing both the content and order of my own list, the most prominent criteria was each score's replay value--or, as king mark put it, the ones I never seem to grow tired of hearing. That makes for changes in the list over time, since there are scores that have gotten a little old since I last Top Tenned my collection (and it makes way for new scores, like Harry Potter....). In a couple of instances, I also took into consideration some personal, deeper connection I have with a particular score. I don't know that even I would count Close Encounters a good candidate for casual listening, but since it's had a profound impact on my life personally, it earned its place more out of a sense of "loyalty" or emotional import. However, were I to put together T-10 Best list, it would be radically different. The main criteria for those scores would be their technical proficiency, appropriateness for their subject films, and all-around mastery of the art form. In that case, Close Encounters would shoot right to the top (for me, of course). Scores like Empire of the Sun would earn a higher spot, and several not on the "Faves" list would join them--kicking several current placeholders off. The most telling example from my lists would be the exchange of ROTJ for Empire Strikes Back--and Empire would rank a lot higher than Jedi's tenth-place spot. It's far and away a better score for its scope and depth. But I like listening to Jedi better. That makes for a huge difference between the two lists. As for everyone being "objective" enough to handle a separate "Best" list....that shouldn't be any problem, since objectivity doesn't really enter into the picture. Any award ever given to commend an accomplishment (especially an artistic one) is based on the subjective opinion of one or more people. Honestly, when applying the moniker "best" to anything in this world, it's impossible not to have personal perspective enter the picture. The Academy Awards, the Grammys, the Nobel and Pulitzers, the blue ribbon at the county fair....all are based on people's basic emotional and cognitive impressions of something. (Actually, when you think about it....sometimes the "favorites" lists are actually more objective than the "best" lists. Consider a movie that might contend in one category or the other: it may earn a Best Picture Oscar--based on opinionated votes--but never rank very high as a statistical favorite--based on box office results. Hmmm....) It's generally understood that in all these cases the award-winners are being recognized because their work is held in high regard by at least one specific person or a finite group of people. But it isn't ever actually stated that way, because it doesn't have to be. The same idea applies to critics; they state their theses in absolutes, as though it were gospel truth, in order to lend weight to their assertions. But everyone knows it's only their opinion. When Roger Ebert writes, "This is one of the best pictures of the year," it's implicit that this is his perspective talking because it's his space to voice it. But that doesn't mean someone who hated the movie is wrong for thinking so, or that their opinion is worth less (which is why we get such a variegated rainbow of differing opinions from the endless parade of critics out there). That's why I think we ought to do the JW Best list. I don't think there's any question it would vary from the Favorites list, and it would be interesting to see how it varied. The first list would be analogous to a Top 40 Countdown on the radio, the scores we want to hear again and again; the second would be more similar to the Oscars, allowing us to play The Academy of Motion Picture Scores and Soundtracks, voting for the honorary award-winners. However....since I'm not the one putting the work into this, I suppose it's not up to me. And, in any case, I think this is all great fun, no matter what. - Uni

Depends on the situation, I suppose....but I do favor the more dramatic effect. And since you made it a point to pay me so personal a respect: 10) Return of the Jedi 9) Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 8) Empire of the Sun 7) Far and Away 6) Jurassic Park 5) Raiders of the Lost Ark 4) Close Encounters 3) Hook 2) E.T. 1) Superman My ninth choice really surprised me....first time Harry's made one of my lists. It's been said before--and I know there's not supposed to be any "judgement" attached to this--but I feel compelled to say once again that this is an ordered list of my favorites, not necessarily paralleled those I consider his best. (But why not do another consensus on that account? It would be interesting to see how the two lists differ, and that one might serve as more of a "JWFan Awards" list. Hmmm....) Thanks for the effort, Joe. I'm intensely curious to see the outcome....:wow: - Uni....who'd like to know what the heck happened to his signatures....

Well, at least I'm in there somewhere....:roll: (And I did know--better than anyone else, really--who Maninpurple was; I just didn't know who his imposter was. I'm beginning to get a sneaking suspicion, however....) And anyway....who needs to be on some stupid high council anyway...? Ten to one, your first vote is to ban everyone with less than 500 posts per year. Maybe there oughta be an MB Low Council. - Uni....who's quite satisfied with his "Veteran" status, thank you very much....

Rough week, family in the hospital. Don't worry, though; I'm still not going anywhere.... Joke's on you....he's just showing up 'cause it's Christmas. Tempting though that might be, we'd miss both your bark and your bite too much. I haven't....yet. This week, most likely. I've heard very good things about it--surprisingly, from people who didn't care as much for the first film. It's interesting, though....I was satisfied, if not enthralled, by FOTR, and though as a Tolkien purist I still have a few things that need removing from my craw on its account, I nonetheless thought it a fairly good treatment of an epic that's gotten far, far worse in the past. But over the last couple of weeks, the bubble, if not yet burst, has deflated a bit more. I went back and starting reading The Silmarillion again, and once I was reminded of the depth of Tolkien's vision--of which LOTR is the culmination--the movie rang even more hollow. It's not Peter Jackson' fault, of course, nor anyone else's invovled in the production. There's only so much that can be done in three hours. I just mourn for those who haven't read the books--worse, those who don't think they need to read the books because, hey, they've seen the movie! There was a commercial on recently, absolutely hilarious, where this elementary school is putting on their yearly play....which just happens to be Ben Hur. There they are, only six or seven years old, replaying the famous chariot race with those old spring-supported hobby horses, flailing each other with their little whips. (The best image is of the rider who falls under his horse....the thing wiggles over his body while he jerks around as though trampled. ) Here's the thing: as wonderful an endeavor as Jackson and company have undertaken, and as well as they pulled it off, ultimately it is to the books what that school play was to the real Ben Hur. However--and most importantly--in the same way Charlton Heston would no doubt smile in good humor and not a little pride if he sat out there with the parents, I think Tolkien would be well-pleased with how his mythology translates to the big screen. Anyway, I think these next two books will be much closer to the real story. Fellowship (the book) is too long to have everything covered cinematically, and spends most of its time in the effort of establishment. Now that the momentum's up, and given that the next two are far shorter in length (if greater in breadth), there should be less chaff and a good deal more authenticity. What's more, once I can take the three in as a single work, the minor deficiencies of the first will probably shrink even further. Oh, please....the worst I get around here is from people who don't think I have one, and take everything I say at face value (dry humor dampened is a frustrating thing.... ) - Uni

That was part of the point: Hook's theme was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek and innocuous. Unlike You-Know-Who, he doesn't represent an apocalyptic threat to the world he menaces. I agree completely, Alan. Though it seems otherwise at times, the severity of the situation in Hook is largely illusion. It's best summed up by the last Never-line (and one of the best in the film): "That was a great game." To the Lost Boys (and, if they were honest, most of the pirates), this is just another chapter in Peter's ongoing adventures. They'll have another one tomorrow. What "intense" music there is serves a function similar to the same type of music in Space Camp, in that it provides dramatic undercurrent, but can't by itself invest sincere tension into scenes where it doesn't exist to begin with (did any of us really believe even one of those adolestronauts were going to die?). Now see, I couldn't disagree more. I think there was magnanimous love for the material--I think that's what gave it the spare remnant of "heart and charm" that survived Spielberg's distractions. I will admit, however, that it's taken me time to find all that. When I first saw it in the theaters, I felt pretty let-down myself. (Doggone it, I need to get my reviews done....I'm starting to spend all my good setup material here....) Right you are again, Alan--though I wouldn't name the 90's exclusive in that sense. During Williams's Golden Age, he crafted his action cues uniquely to scene, character and film as well. (A few examples: "Desert Chase" from Raiders, the "TIE-Fighter Fight" from Star Wars, most of Superman's exploits, as well as the better part of the action in Jaws.) That's one of the things that really drew me to him in the beginning. Recently, though, he has fallen into a bit of a mechanical pacing in much of his action fare. It still works--and there are still too few composers who can claim otherwise themselves--but I do miss some of the more theme-specific bellicosity he used to parade for us. Now....last but hopefully not least, the request at hand. It's interesting, Lou, that you're getting flak on this particular subject. Usually James Horner does a pretty good job running interference where self-cloning is concerned, making such an obvious show of it that most people don't get around to harping on our Maestro for it. For all that, though, once anyone looks deeper than the surface, it isn't something that can remain hidden for long. Naturally there are any number of similarities that pop up from score to score, even given Williams's marvelous gift for complexity. (The HP/Hook breach, though somewhat apparent, is the least of them, frankly; he's got some real peaches in his earlier works.) The term "rip-off," though, is misapplied. It presupposes intent. I don't think for an instant that John looks back over his past scores in a painstaking search for some of his better phrasings and themes ripe for twisting into new material. Rather, it's a matter of predilection and personal style. Given long enough, you'll find even the most talented musicians will begin to repeat themselves, whether it be matching guitar riffs, homogenous piano archipeggios, or familiar trills on another favorite instrument. The mind, guiding the hands, falls unconsciously into old patterns, and without intending it some previous melody or line is rebegotten and folded into the mix without a second thought. On a larger scale, it's what the word "style" implies; we take a liking to an artist because their new stuff sounds relatively similar to what's gone before, even over an extended period of time. Artists get blasted by their fans for "crossing over," attempting a different sound than the one they're accustomed to hearing. If their grooves are good for the settling, why should composers be any different? At least John is content in these (rare) circumstances with taking from himself, rather than lifting from a less satisfactory source. Self-cloning is said to be ultimately self-defeating, but I think Williams's gene pool is rich enough to spawn a fair number of likenesses before the system degenerates irrepairably. Hope that gives you an idea or two, Lou. - Uni....who's always satisfied when he invents a new word--especially one that might someday be coined by the Space Program....

Is Ray the only one who can answer on this? A few of us other "geezers" might have an insight or two....:wow: - Uni

And we wonder why so few women post here.... LOL In any case....welcome, Sarah (my favorite name!). It's always nice to see someone new around here....and yes, it's doubly so when the newcomer is a lady (and triply so to get another constituent in favor of John's beleaguered masterpiece, Hook!). Hope you've enjoyed what you've seen so far, and I hope you'll help continue making it enjoyable in the future. And getting back to the future ()....While the second film was very clever, and the third was just plain fun, the first will always be my favorite. At the time, it was a brilliant idea in itself, and it does the best job of creating a plausible dilemma (for sci-fi, anyway) out of a fascinating concept, while keeping things very character-friendly. Personally, I think Bob Zemeckis is one of the brightest of Hollywood's lights, though he's often overshadowed by the likes of Spielberg and Lucas (though, in the case of the latter, only God knows why....). - Uni

Yesterday's game against the Raiders should help you take an admirable step in your recovery therapy.... banghead censored - Uni