Uni

Assuming you're talking about the Big Ending (and not the very end, the coffee shop proposal - though that one was appropos as well), I thought it was great. Here at last was a film that really kept us in the dark until the end - is it a game, or is it real? Of course it's unbelievable; to suggest that human reaction could be predicted to such an infinitessimally finite degree is ludicrous. But that's the fun of it. I don't go to the movies to see everyday life plodding before my eyes; I go because I want to see things I know could never happen in "real life." It's the only place to get it, really, other than our own imaginations, and since the filmmakers can provide it, then why not? (Perhaps the most unbelievable part of all this is the fact that people are debating the believability of plot turns in stories relating to living dinosaurs, evolved apes, time travel, aliens, etc. - inherently discreditable subjects in themselves.) 1- I think there's some confusion here (either on my part or yours....). The ion storm induced time travel, as demonstrated by the chronometric readings in the pod during the trip. Since Thade was stuck on the ship, my assumption (maybe right, probably wrong) was that he messed around with something, maybe got something started up or found another pod or whatever, and managed to launch himself - accidently, most likely - into space, where he took a ride on the Ion Express and wound up on Earth - Earth of the past. He then set about getting his revenge on the humans, and establishing apekind as the dominant race on the planet. I'm not endorsing the logic of it, mind you - for one thing, to say that even just the architectural history would have remained the same, as testified by the unchanged Washington D.C. landscape, is absurd. But then, the whole thing is pretty outlandish....so, speaking strictly in the context of the story, Thade's appearance in the 19th century fits as well as anything else. 2- Again, I don't see where the "parallel universe" comes in; it's ours, just a different time and a different place (as you point out in your last entry). However, I don't see why it should be assumed the apes ought to have developed "more human features" in any amount of time. Even subscribing to Darwinism (which I don't), that could just be a local phenomenon. On that planet, evolutionary conditions could be completely different. 3- I'm not sure what you're referring to here, the apes' planet or Earth at the end. If apes have taken over, though, then who's to say there are any humans left...? As for the ending itself....I took it to be the cinematic equivalent of a tongue-in-cheek groaner, an inside joke of sorts. Again, totally unbelievable, but what of it? I figured Burton was looking for a big paradoxical finish, something on the level of the ending in the original film, with a slightly more humorous twist. Nothing credible, but nothing to get bent out of shape about, either. I enjoyed the movie as a whole, but didn't assign it too much weight. Here we go again....says who? You, I suppose - though I've yet to see tangible evidence that your dramatic tastes exceed any of ours. One man's crap is another man's....eh....fertilizer, or something, right? :roll: On JPIII: In my no-better-than-anyone-else's opinion, it was nothing more than it was meant to be: a couple of hours' entertainment, extending from a previous storyline without adding anything to it. I enjoyed it for that reason, but didn't give it any more gravity than I did to POTA 2001 (sounds like a new foreign hatchback). I couldn't stand The Lost World. Both the book and the movie seemed to me the most obvious sequel-just-for-sequel's-sake I've ever seen (and read). It didn't add anything to the JP world, either - though it tried desperately to do so. In the end, though, it was just a matter of lining up a group of indistinguishable people to be eaten, trodden on, carved up, and otherwise escorted through death's door as blatant exhibits to the folly of man's interference with "nature" - as well as an excuse for Steven Spielberg to play his own version of King Kong, again for no better reason than simply say he'd done it. The lack of dramatic premise left me hollow, and the concept itself had already lost its wonder (so beautifully portrayed in the first film). JPIII wasn't a great deal better, but it was featherweight, a comic-book adaptation, and at the very least it was more entertaining than the second installment. It was also another chance to include something from the original book (the pteronadon aviary). It's funny - to some extent, these belated additions almost seem like the only reason for the later films to exist. (There were several references to the first novel in TLW too.) As for my own Worst Ending Scenarios: The one that springs immediately to mind is Alien3. Having loved the first two, I tried to keep an open mind throughout a movie that just felt wrong; but the end finished it off for me, and let me know I had just wasted two hours of my life. After all that we'd been through, that she'd been through, to end it like that....oh, man, was I hacked off. Another one that's always bugged me (though it'll sound silly in this context): I hate movies that end with a sudden character change in order to facilitate a happy, romantic ending. My primary case in point: Soul Man. Another silly movie (and as ludicrous in concept as any we've talked about here), but good fun nonetheless. However, the strongest character in the movie, played by Ray Dawn Chong, does a complete 180 degree about-face in the last few minutes, going back on everything she's established in her favor for the sake of a quick-fix stroll into the sunset. Man, I can't stand that. - Uni

Take it while you can get it.... Aw, shucks....Missed you too, during your long absence. It's good to see you back around again. And I must admit, it's kinda nice seeing the moniker "Veteran" under my name....good to know that seniority (such as it is) doesn't depend on sheer quantity of posts - if it did, it would read "Rank Amateur." - Uni

Well, my own computer's still shot, but I've got a new laptop - slower 'n' sin, but it works. I'm gonna spend a day or two catching up on the last couple of month's worth of posts, then I'll jump in again. (Too bad....I missed the chat by only a few hours today. I would like to have talked to some of you live.... ) - Uni....who hopes to be back for a good while this time....

Excellent books. Outstanding. I got diverted away from CoS early on, but then came back to it later, reread it from the start, and continued on through the rest. Anyone who could call this a "children's story" after the events of 3 and 4 either haven't read the books (I'll get to that in a minute!) or don't have a dramatic clue. Can't agree with you there. The tone of the series has changed subtly, but that was to be expected. If all the books read like the first one, it would be a shallow epic indeed. Not, of course, to say that I didn't like the first one - just that stories, and especially sagas, need their landscape to change over time. We want things to be different in the end than they were in the beginning - and preferably, we'd like to be a little different, too. Actually, I think the fourth book is where Rowling was heading the story from the start; she just had to establish setting and context first, and I love that she took her time doing it. It's been a true pleasure getting to know this world and these characters (can there be any higher compliment for a literary work?). Absolutely. The same's true for LOTR. I feel sickened, thinking about an entire generation who will be culled into seeing the movie first, and missing one of the truly awesome literary experiences of our time.... :cry: Oh, and incidentally....very well done, Marian. No one could have summed things up better. And you know this...how? You haven't read the books, fercryinoutloud! Just howd'ya know what sort of "other fiction books/movies" you might find mixed up in there? I believe it's the originality of the books that have made them so endearing and wildly popular. But then again....the old adage says that there are no original stories left to be told, that everything we read or see - or write ourselves - is just a variation on what is likely an already ancient storyline. Nothing wrong with this, of course; what's important is how you tell it, and if it's done cleverly enough then that'll substitute nicely for "originality." On the same note: if you think "dark side" - either the concept or the phrase itself - was coined for the first time by Lucas or Star Wars, you're out of your mind. That one's as old as they come. In any case, while I believe in the wonderful freedom of opinion we have here....I can't possibly lend any weight to yours. It would be the same as someone who's never seen a movie or heard the works of JW calling him a hack. This is absolutely true, and it's the reason I couldn't stomach more than one series of them after the Timothy Zahn trilogy. Zahn did the job admirably, paying due tribute while creating a compelling story of his own, but I haven't seen the equal of it since. There's nothing wrong with fanfic, I guess, but it doesn't get any free rides; it still has to come up with the goods, and the vast majority of SW (and Star Trek) novels don't even come close. But again, you're comparing apples and oranges when you've never had even a taste of citrus fruit before. You're welcome to avoid the books, if that's what you want; but if that's what you choose, then you also ought to avoid reviewing them out of place. A quick opinion on the delay of the fifth book: I could be way off here, but I think Rowling might just be burning out on the series. It was an enchanting idea when it was the fantasy of a destitute single mother, but now that it, and she, have gained worldwide popularity, it would stand to reason that the honeymoon's rapidly coming to an end. She has a million things on her schedule that she didn't used to, an empire of merchandising, and novels that keep getting longer with each one she writes. Not an easy workload, and something that can easily lead to creative fatigue. Just a thought, mind you; I don't have any insider information. Anyway, good discussion, folks. - Uni

I'd love to, Pete, but my computer's still fritzed out. I can only squeeze in a few minutes a week here and there, dang it. It's really frustrating in situations like this, when I'd like to be more a part of a continuing conversation. (Kinda makes you miss the old days in the chat room, huh?) In any case, I'm still floating around, checking in from time to time to see what sort of dust is flying. Although we don't have nearly as many threads as controversial as this one as we used to, it's still nice to see feathers ruffle on occassion. Keeps the passion stirring, I say. - Uni

Whoooo.....this one's a riproarer. With all the to-do about arrogance cancering the board recently, I haven't seen one like this in a long time. Course, these used to be the ones I jumped into with the greatest relish, so you know I'm not gonna sit this one out.... But where to begin? Suppose I'll work my way backward to the original (nearly forgotten) question.... Let's begin by dilluting some of the bad blood. It was kinda funny watching both sides (if sides they are) falling into the trap they're accussing the other of setting. Jeremy (I'm glad I got the name; I was getting tired of untying my tongue after trying to pronounce the handle) did start off on the wrong foot with some ill-chosen wording, basically saying, "I wish you could see the world through my eyes; then you might have some wisdom about you." Ricard (rightfully) took this offensively. I don't know that I want to understand Williams the way you do, Jeremy. I've grown kinda fond of the way I understand the man's music (and who's to say you're not missing out by not seeing it from my point of view...?). However, there shortly followed a strong demand that Jeremy stop enjoying JW his way and start seeing things through everyone else's eyes. I'm fuzzy on this, folks; how is that any better than what Jeremy did? The assertions ranged from gentle ("why don't you try listening a different way?") to severe ("your way of listening is dead wrong, and you're the fool for it"). I'm sorry to say that, of all these examples, Joe's were far and away the worst - so bad I was taking offense. For all the talk of cynisism recently, I was surprised to find you hardening faster than anyone, Joe. I clearly remember a time when you were more open. To cite a couple of examples: I beg your pardon? Aside from the last statement being completely paradoxical, where do you come off stamping someone emotionless just because they don't see things the way you do? Even the bystanders are taking shrapnel. I'm sorry, this is arrogance at its worst. (I'll skip the McCartney/Williams debate, though that stuff was as overboard as anything else.) This isn't the only thread either, Joe. You've really come out harsh in recent times against people who simply don't see things your way. I've always thought of you as an intelligent contributor (hey, how can I think otherwise of someone who loves CE3K?), but your attitude detracts from the strength of your viewpoint sometimes. Sorry; it's been on my mind a while, and this seemed as good a time as any to deal with it. As for the extent of your formidable music knowledge, Jeremy, and some of the questions you raised: I'm surprised no one answered this. There are countless examples. A couple that come immediately to mind: "Can you read my mind?" (Interrogative, rather than a statement, but a legal sentence nonetheless.) "When you're alone, you're not alone." (Excellent use of irony.) (Sorry....not making fun of you, Jeremy; I just couldn't resist. LOL) As for your other business, it was frankly all over my head. I don't know if he likes mustard on his hot dogs, either, but I don't let that affect my love of his music. I do find it fascinating, however, to see some of the discussions emerging between you and say, Skymaker, involving these little technicalities, in the same way I might be intruiged by doctors debating some obscure track of medical insight without understanding a word they say. I admire you both for having such a wonderful grasp of the mechanics of music. On the other hand.... This, on the other hand, is the opposite (and just as saddening) culmination resulting from negative feedback. What right does anyone on this board have to tell someone that they're in the wrong for analyzing music? We all appreciate it; what some people are forgetting is that analysis can be a form of appreciation in itself. And it isn't quite as easy to turn on and off as some of you seem to hope. I've been a freelance writer for years, but for the last few, I've been entrenched in the more professional side of the craft. Wanting to keep ahead of the game, I've spent a long time studying the technical aspects of writing - grammar, style, form, etc - and I can tell you that it has forever altered not only the way I write, but the way I read as well. It's come to the point where I can hardly get through a poorly written book, even if the story's passable; the text fairly wails its grief over not having a proper copyediting job done before it went to print. Does this mean I can no longer enjoy the heady and exhilirating experience of a good novel? Of course not. I just see it differently, that's all. My perspective's changed - not for the better or worse, except for how it affects my performance as a writer. And so, being a composer and music theorist, Jeremy can hardly switch his analytical mind off like a light switch - especially if he wants to excel at composition. He'll always be learning as he listens, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that he listens with his mind as well as his heart. Doesn't mean he doesn't appreciate or enjoy it; it's just different for him than for the rest of us. And so (to conclude that line of argument - once and for all, I hope, though my optomism remains guarded :roll:), while Jeremy's wording did come across pretty arrogantly, it was hardly worse than many of the responses - which fell guilty to precisely the same crime. Honestly, this whole "my way's better" thing (not just here, but overall) is getting a little old. The risk is always there in a forum like this, but I do think it can be avoided with a little forethought and tact. (Translation: Jeez, take it easy, folks.... ) And now - finally! - to get to the whole "classical elitism" bit: This attitude is old school (no pun intended), and not just applicable to music. The same thing is way too common in literature, where the "intellectuals" believe that authors like John Grisham, Tom Clancy, Rowling, Collins, Ludlum, and any one of a hundred other best-selling authors are nothing more than contemporary tripe, hardly worth the paper they're printed on. Only the "classics" - Tolstoy, Dumas, Cervantes, Twain, Hemingway, Steinbeck and so on - are worthy of true literary praise. Never mind that the style that many of these authors used is painfully out of date, and anyone using similar approaches in today's market would not only remain unpublished, but would be excoriated as well. Never mind the old saying that "a million people can't be wrong." Professors, critics, analysts, and the general well-to-do in literary circles hold their noses up at current trends and modern approaches - not because it's a valid point of view, but for the most part simply because it makes them look smarter, more "proper." Every branch of creative productivity fosters elitist cliques; why should music be any different? Personally, I've always found this perspective (in whatever artform) pure dribble, utter nonsense. The arts are, ultimately, for the people, to be interpreted, appreciated, and integrated as the beholder sees fit, and then to be passed on in evolved form to the next generation of art lovers who will in their turn innovate it in their own way. And in my opinion, John Williams is the best at that very thing - taking an established mode of art and reshaping it in his own unique way. And however you choose to partake of his brilliance, in whatever manner you choose to appreciate it, it's bound to be a thrilling ride. And isn't the ride all that really matters in the end...? - Uni

Good post.... I tried to go deep on this one, but the only one that came to mind is the one that (still) gives me goosebumps every time: the Falcon's escape from the Death Star in ROJ. The engulfing flames....the bursting TIE fighters....the fire creeping ahead of them....and then the great explosion and expulsion, Lando's victory whoop, and the final end of the final Death Star. Coupled with the music, this scene rocks. (This is the one I was really dying for when the SW Anthology came out in '93, and I listened to it over and over the first night I got it.) - Uni

I wasn't aware this was still going on (not that I check in enough to know anyway....). Truth is, there's hardly anyone on this board who's gone for a reeeeally long stretch without a single typo or grammatical trip-up (myself included). Let he who has not sinned throw the first Manual of Style. Case in point....I though this was hilarious - not just because of the joke I know it was, but because it's bad form in itself (the comma is improperly used....heh, heh ) It's in my top five, too, and I know for a fact that we're not the only ones. (Hey....why don't we start acting like we're the ones who are absolutely right on the money about that score...?) And on that very subject of arrogance....since everyone on this MB is doing the same thing - expressing their opinions - the only differentiating factor, really, is how they choose to do it. The specific degree of ass-pompousness varies, but it can usually be guaged from the extent to which the speaker relates his subjective opinion as objective fact. I have a dissertation hidden away somewhere on this subject, but the last I saw it was several MB's ago.... Anyway, don't give up on us. The vast majority of folks around here are pretty concilliatory....it's just that the "cynics" (to use the word that's come into prominence around here lately) tend to be the more vocal ones. Not to minimize their contributions, either....I think they add some charm to the place. - Uni

That's just who the guy's talking to as the shutter snapped....:wow: - Uni

And who might you be forgetting on that list...? I recall at some point having a discussion with you about our equal passion for the score. And I do agree with Mark here....The Abduction is one of the most harrowing pieces I've ever encountered in my life. It was quite some time before I could listen to it in the dark, and even to this day it's something I won't do all that often (although, now that I know the piece better, that's a more giddy and fun activity than it used to be, like a good haunted house experience). - Uni

Clearly.... :roll: I've been too busy mourning my own sad story (missing the concert in Cleveland) to be much good around here, but I had to jump in and give a fellow JWMB vet a pat on the shoulder. It'll pass, my friend, one way or another. Either way, however, it's better in my book to have experienced it and to cherish the memory than to never have something like that happen at all, and miss out on one of those occurrences that makes life such a passionate adventure.... A similar thing happened to me years ago....one girl, one night. Never again. Wouldn't trade it for the world. On the other hand....life could still be worse for you, Mr. James Bond. Would that some of us could say, "Well, I've lost her to the Phillipines....but, hey, it's off to Italy now...." :cool: - Uni

My favorite minimalist composer is me. I push the edge of minimalism, by hardly ever composing anything. (I'm sort of the Ben Kingsley of composition....I tend to favor using silence to get my point across.) - Uni :wink2:

Y'know what? Here's an example of an opinion with which I disagree personally, and yet can understand completely. It does visit the same ground many times over, and is less thematically varied than many of his other works. I can see where, if it doesn't get you just right, it would become trite and overrated. I guess....it got me just right, that's all. :wink2: That's where defining "Top 5" comes in, I think. Best, or favorite? There's a big difference. Someone's "best" may fail to move you, while sometimes you favor a work that's less-than-perfect technically or artistically. I took this polling as a Favorites list. As for his Best....I'd have to rethink. Not many....although I might argue against the words "based on" or "constructed". Most of his scores have original foundations; they just tend to be decorated with the same affectations, the same way people move to different houses but hang the same pictures on the wall. With Horner, it's something I don't have a problem with, either - especially since I like so many of his "pictures." For the record, I also consider Aliens to be one of the least of his efforts (I hesitate to say "worst" - it's not all that bad). It fit the movie, but no, it didn't do much in the way of groundbreaking, other than to give marketing people a quick fix for teasers over the next fifteen plus years. I also need to have a long talk with him about the Katchaturian thing, but we've been here before.... Something I know about you, and an idea that has a lot to recommend it. Actually, anyone who's a Horner fan should like this one; it's a Greatest Hits compilation all in one package, and easily done well enough to justify and excuse revisiting old haunts. The first two tracks make for great goosebump fodder. - Uni

Another word for "complex?" I just call it "busy" - and it is absolutely one of my favorite aspects of filmusic, especially the scores of John Williams, who seems (in my eyes) to be consistently better at it than anyone. I think I once mentioned a time when I was listening to the Mission Theme for NBC - a news theme, fercryinoutloud - and it brought tears to my eyes, for the sheer joy of how much was happening at once. I think one of the great proofs not only of John's musical genuis but his musical appreciation as well is that he engages so much of the orchestra all the time. He doesn't ignore entire sections in favor of others for sustained periods, a sin some composers are constantly guilty of committing. He gets everyone involved, even allowing some of the more obscure and supporting instruments (tuba, bassoon, oboe) to take the front seat from time to time. And Princess Leia's Theme is a great example, Joe, of how well he develops his themes. He's great at the complexities, sure, but he doesn't start out that way most of the time. He begins small, allowing the main line alone to establish itself; then he brings in the rest gradually, slowly, allowing it all to combine at just the right pace and to build into something magnificently grand - before (in many cases) quieting down again and reminding us of where it all began. Brilliant, profound, and absolutely thrilling to experience. It's all an integral part of what makes him great....and what brings us here. Good thread, folks....

I've been plenty vocal about this before, but since we're back on the subject....yes, this film had terrible dialogue. Don't be too quick to knock Danielle Steel; she probably would have done it better, having some experience with that sort of writing (not that I'd know, of course....:oops:) There was only one moment in this film when I believed in the love story....and that was in the final scene, when they wisely kept their mouths shut. Aside from the romantic nonsense, the writing in the rest of the film was about on par with the rest of the Star Wars saga - meaning it ranged from workable status-quo to regretfully corny. But, as I've also mentioned before, one does not watch these films for tips on dramatic writing, then go on to cross their fingers in hope that they will cop a Best Screenplay nomination. They're pure, mythic fun, and it's best to keep them in that frame of mind. (The reason the love scenes are so painful and cannot beg the same excuse is because they're entering into the arena of emotional intimacy, which, if not done just right, can derail an entire story through failure to suspend disbelief.) That's a great way to look at it. They're married now, so there's no reason for all that yucky romance, right? LOL Maybe we'll get to see the Jedi version of a marital bout....lightsabers, things being Force-yanked around the room....the Dark Side of domestic disputes. Interesting.... - Uni

I was planning to be there, John - and it would have been a pleasure meeting you - but my lack of means has deprived me of that particular end. I've been battling depression over it, especially since the program was released. Hook....Attack of the Clones....Harry Potter....bad enough to miss all of that, but to be deprived of an opportunity to do the one piece that I'd like above all others to see him conduct - "Adventures on Earth"? Oh, man. I'll be crying myself to sleep Sunday night.... :cry: - Uni P.S. By the way....this concert that's supposedly being broadcast on public television that night....that isn't by any chance a live feed of the Cleveland concert, is it? One may be allowed his petty, desperate hopes....

Wouldn't dream of sitting out on another Horner discussion.... 5) Krull - For the sheer scope of it, and for the fact that he pounded it out in a very short time while suffering from some still-undisclosed illness. Epic, heroic, and (for the time, and him), very original. 4) Braveheart - Actually, this one ties with the next (Apollo 13). I don't understand the problem some people have with this score; I've always found it stirring, passionate and profound (like the movie itself). 3) Apollo 13 - Supporting one of the best American films of the '90's, this one never fails to move me. The perfect accompaniment to the perfect film - and I don't know about peddles vs. figures, but this is one of my favorite end title suites the guy ever did. 2) Star Trek II - His first big-screen outing, and still one of his best. It has the advantage of standing beyond the reach of the usual "Horner=plaguerism" debate, since it was his first and since it departed so brilliantly from the tack Goldsmith took with the first ST picture (another ingenious score, of course; I'm only saying Horner didn't take the easier road of following precedence). It also established him firmly as an extended-cue prodigy. 1) Glory - I watched this movie again the other day, for the first time in years....and I was blown away, both by the film and the unbelievable score that takes it to an entirely new level. One example: watch when Matthew Broderick, sitting on his horse, takes a moment alone to look out to sea and consider the fact that this is likely the last day of his life. No words....just an expression of courage battling with the burden of truth, and music that wraps both up in the embrace of one of the most profound themes ever written for film (this is the one that puts him in league with Williams). Absolutely beautiful. Some runners up that deserve honorable mention: - Willow - Yes, I struggled with this one. It came down to choosing the better fantasy score....but it could easily have been counted with those above. - The Rocketeer - For a score that so blatantly violates the edict of originality, I sometimes wonder that it's so popular - but it shouldn't be all that surprising. This is a marvelous piece of work....and who really cares that it's constructed out of leftovers from his body of work in the 80's? Hey, if he threw it together from parts out of old Tangerine Dream and Queen scores, then we'd have a problem. - Searching for Bobby Fischer - One of Horner's oft-overlooked gems. - Legends of the Fall - Field of Dreams - The Spitfire Grill As for Titanic....a good and appropriate score for a great movie, but perfect? Oh, please. I admit the listening experience has been tainted considerably by Celine Dion's crooning the thing to death, but even in the early days this never struck me as one of James's standout performances. It fits, it does what it ought to (and I'll even allow for a little more than that), then it goes home at the end of the day. It just can't compare to the works listed above - and to say Williams - can't - match - it!?!?! *deep breath* Well, I suppose hyperbole has long been a companion to this particular story. After all, they once called the ship itself unsinkable.... - Uni

That last post was mine. I don't know why this computer can't remember to log me in.... - Uni

What, I wonder, is the source of this compulsion that makes people feel like they have to apologize for loving a score like E.T.? It's absolutely one of Williams's finest hours (and Spielberg's as well; he gets a major collaboration credit for turning off the film during the final sequences and allowing John to conduct "Adventures on Earth" the way he'd written it). There's nothing childish or silly about it. It's the people who can't see its genius that I'd worry for.... :? During my recent, wonderful return to the movie in the theaters (where it belongs forever, IMO), one of the things I noticed most keenly was that it seemed like years since a film score had been so tactile, so incredibly pervasive, that it seemed to float dreamily in the air in front of me. James Earl Jones's line from Field of Dreams came to mind: "The memories will be so thick, they'll have to brush them away from their faces." (Just for fun....I waved my hand in front of me when the line came to me. ) All the moments listed above are worthy of the praise given them. My favorite? The rainbow into space. Chills every single time, without exception. The one who can't be moved by music and visuals like that....well, there's no use saying it, since they can't be appealed to anyway. Very nicely done, Harry. You do really well at picking out the details and appreciating the connection between the film and its score (a relationship that cannot be overlooked, if you ask me). I'd like to talk to you about your writing sometime. (I'll call you, though....my e-mail's still on the fritz. Soon, I hope.) - Uni

As I mentioned recently on yet another Horner thread (speaking of copying previous material....all these JH threads are starting to sound alike, aren't they...? :roll:), my biggest PPRO - Pet Peeve Rip-Off - is his constant use of the Adagio from the Gayne Ballet. It pops up first in Aliens, then in both Patriot Games and its sequel, Clear and Present Danger, then again in another film someone mentioned on that previous thread which I have yet to see. So imagine my surprise when, just the other day, I turned on Project X, a movie I haven't seen for fifteen years (when it first came out), and what should I hear but the melancholy strains of the SAME PIECE yet again? I was speechless, and for the first time I actually had to tip my hat to the Hornerbashers. It's one thing to mimic a piece for a major theme in one movie; to do it over and over again is just begging for criticism. - Uni....who remains a loyal Horner fan nonetheless.... :roll:

I agree with Marian - the sound quality is much better in the Anthology. And with Nosebleed (interesting handle, that), in that it's almost worth the purchase just to get the booklet with the liner notes. The only frustrating aspect of the Anthology is the fact that you can't listen to any score in totality without switching discs (a lot of the mix is on Disc 4). Apart from that, it's hard to say....when it came out in '93, I was beside myself. Still a good five years removed from the Special Editions, this was an event I had waited half my life for - and in the end, as a result, I think I hold more loyalty toward the Anthology than the SE's. - Uni

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that creating CGI is a breeze (I know I couldn't do it), or that I'm not often impressed with the results. I'm just saying it's not hands-on anymore, and to a certain degree I think it shows. It's the same thing with set-building. Time was when our jaws hung agape at the sight of worlds that had been created by hand, places where actors could cavort around convincingly because they were really there. In the new SW films, actors play in front of bluescreens. Does it work? I suppose so, at least visually. But when Ewan McGregor said recently that he was having a blast "playing Star Wars," just like when he was a kid, only it was for real now, I had a hard time believing he had more fun than the actors in the original films, who actually got to run through the halls of the Death Star or strut around on the Millenium Falcon. That, I think, would have been the better of the two. - Uni

Which, since I taped the movie off T.V. back in the early eighties, was the version I grew up with. I was aghast many years later when I watched the original version on cable; I couldn't believe how much was left out. Made it feel hollow. The full version is the real masterpiece. Star Trek V was an awful groaner, to be sure, but Jerry rose above the mayhem as usual and delivered, if not perhaps the best score of the franchise, at least a very noble attempt and some fantastic new themes. To begin with, this is where he first introduced the new, four-note motif he included in all his subseuent Treks; add to that the wonderful Mountain theme (yes, it begs for a concert version), "A Busy Man" - one of the gems of the whole series - and some good action cues, better even than is normal for Goldsmith, and you're left with a more than passable score. Good stuff. - Uni

They crossed those boundaries....and suddenly, the show stopped being funny. - Uni :mad:

Like anything else, there's good and bad CGI. I can deal with just about anything, though, except for when they attempt to mimic human movement. They can pull off animals and aliens better; for instance, in everyday life, we don't see large animals like elephants (upon which many of the JP dinos were based) on a regular basis, and we never see aliens. It's easier to portray new and unfamiliar movement as being realistic. However, we're intimately familiar with almost every aspect of human physical behavior, and every attempt to fool me with an animated person has been worse than bad, it's been awful - especially if there's a lot of movement. (Say, a hormonally distraught Jedi teenager trying to surf the galaxy's fattest cow.... :roll:) And I was less concerned with who was trying to curse Harry's broomstick than I was with who was transmogrifying him and the other kids into flabby blobs of gelatinous goo. The other big hangup I have is with this new trend toward updating classics with new graphics. CGI is, in many ways, fast becoming the Colorization technique of the new generation. Fifteen years ago, we grimaced as we watched our favorite old-time actors struggle with jaundice and pastel fashions; nowadays, if we want to partake in the wondrous experience of watching E.T. in the theaters, we have to swallow his "new and improved" makeover. That project failed, I think, for the same reasons they have such a hard time with humans. After 20 years, we're as acquainted with the little guy's facial expressions and movements as we are with our next door neighbor's. The original animatronic puppet didn't look completely real, no - but that's a tremendous part of what made him so endearing. He was an alien; he wasn't like us, so we could accept that he didn't move like us. The occasional jerky movement, the awkward flexibility of the fingers, the stiffness of the lips, all of it was just what made E.T. who he was. Giving him etiquette lessons so he can move with the smooth grace of a swan takes that away from us. He also got a facelift while they were at it, and if anything, that was an even worse trial to endure. The ol' pulsing lobes and sweaty wrinkles reminded us that he wasn't just another stuffed toy in Elliot's closet, in spite of his success in fooling Mom into thinking so. (A local sportscaster put it best, I think, when he called him "our little bacon-faced friend.") In the new version, he looks like a walking product placement for Oil of Olay; all the wrinkles are filled in with a pasty, white substance, the worst makeup job Hollywood's seen in years. Then they go and digitally add a series of mini-trampolines to make his jog back to the ship look like a Summer Olympic tryout for the long jump. Sheesh. Every time we observe this nonesense going on, we can see the computer nerds poking their heads in and grinning at their own cleverness. They may as well just have digitally created a thumb at the edge of the lens. You wanna deck out the ship a few extra Christmas ornaments, fine; but please, please leave our favorite characters alone. As the movie proceeded, I had a growing sense of dread that they were going to redo E.T.'s face again in the forest scene, when he looks down at Elliot and smiles. When the scene arrived, I was overjoyed to learn the makeup artist had taken that day off....and my reasoning was reaffirmed. You simply cannot improve on poniagncy that runs that deep. I have only one more gripe with CGI, though it's a slight one: I miss the days of being amazed at the creativity of SPFX - not just at what we saw, but at how it was accomplished. Each of the middle films in the two SW trilogies has an asteroid sequence; while I was enthralled with the content of the one in AOTC, I was much less impressed with its craftsmanship, because I knew it was pushbutton. Back in 1980, they had to film real rocks - one at a time - and then film real ships dodging around nothing, and then put it all together later. They had to plan it out in detail, they had to painstakingly endure the process, and when it was over, the first dailies were met with raucous applause. Somehow I don't think the effects wizards took the time to clap when the most recent sequence was complete; it was just another computer program, one of countless others in that film alone. I think the days of true effects wizardry are over. The Microwave Generation has taken over Hollywood, and things will never be the same. :confused: - Uni