Uni
-
Posts
2,963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Posts posted by Uni
-
-
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.
Well, I think that the three first books are excellent,however, "Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire" is horrible!
That makes me worried. As the latest book was crap, I have lost many expectations I had on book 5 of the series - in fact, I am even questioning if all the seven books will ever be written (and I am even more doubtfull HP4 and the others will be made into movies).
If they are making the three first books on film, then we`ll have excellent books transformed into a trilogy of excellent movies.
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?).
Believe me, you're ruining it if you watch the movies first.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.
Overrated kids' books. Also a mixture of differents other fiction books-movies. Just the thing that the bad mages are the DARKSIDE makes me sick.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.
Luke let me be real blunt, you read those Star Wars novels, when compared to Harry Potter on a literary scale Harry is a whole lot farther up that scale than any, and I repeat any Star Wars book. All those Star Wars books are kids books as well. They are written on a junior high level. Few are particulary well written, though some are much better than others.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
-
Yahoo! I love to read in depth analyses of our threads here. Welcome back Uni. And post more often!
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:
You are ignorant of feeling. What a cold and empty existance you must lead. You must not be much of a composer either, since you must analyze instead of feel.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?
Morn, maybe when you have experience some real life, you will understand a few more things than you don't seem to grasp now.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:
If anyone could give an example of a theme where Williams uses sentence construction, please give an example.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....
I am really starting to hate Williams' music simply because none of you will allow me to love it. Part of my love for a piece of music is my ability to tear it apart and realize everything that it is, complete with whatever flaws or greatness it may possess. But no, I guess that I CAN'T learn from my favorite composer because I CAN'T analyse it.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
-
And about the grammar situation...take a chill pill. Some people who post here aren't even from english-speaking countries.
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.
You spelled, "piece" wrong.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
)Second, my icon is indicative of my view to the score of "Hook", which I attest to be my favorite score ever written.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
-
Jesus Christ......
That's just who the guy's talking to as the shutter snapped....:wow:
- Uni
-
You have to understand that only about 6 or 7 people on this board, like
or appreciate Close Encounters for the masterpiece it is.
Lets see, theres you, me, figo, Ricard, Five Tones, Indysolo, and maybe a couple of others.
It is a totally underappreciated score here. The way its treated here you'd think James Horner had scored it, with its lack of respect.
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
-
Well, never successfully
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:
-
I don't know about others, but I find it extremely repetitive, boring and pretentious
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.
How many Horner scores aren't constructed out of leftovers from his body of work in the early 80s? (which is something I don't have a problem with, except for Aliens -where absolutely nothing is new-, in my opinion Horner's worst score along with Braveheart -sorry!)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....
BTW, Rocketeer is definitely on my Top 5 listSomething 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.)
I don't think the dialogue was that bad, honestly, but besides, if there WAS bad dialogue, it would be the lovey dovey stuff, and since they're already married in Episode III, maybe there won't be any schmaltzy cliched lines. Hell, that's the way it works in real life.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
-
It's good, but the Schumann rip is IMHO the most annoying thing Horner has ever done....
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
-
As far as I know, it'll be the TV cut that has a few additional scenes.
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
-
The implied humor was fantastic, genius really, and so restrained. They walked boundries they would later cross, and have long since been passed today.
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
-
Seems like familiar territory to me.... :roll:
But there is an undlying tone in alot of the people who like A.I., perhaps even Fight Club that "they" got it. That "we" missed the point. As if "we" are inferior and less intelligent because "we" didn't get it. Superiority doesn't happen because one likes movie. This kind of intellectual snobbing is not very appropriate or appreciated.Precisely. This point of view would have us believe that if someone saw Battlefield Earth and liked it, then they have some sort of deeper insight or more advanced understanding of artistic expression than we do (the guy's gotta be a friggin' genius, man....I mean, there's only three or four people in the world like him, right...?). That's nothing short of inane. Hey, you enjoyed a particular movie, great; but that doesn't make you better, that just makes you you.
Furthermore, some of the comments made here regarding those who dislike the movie are provocative and insulting.Agreed, for the same reasons.
People do not "miss" good or bad things. "Good" and "Bad" are very subjective concepts. Assuming that someone didn't get to see the good aspects of a movie and trying to convince that person that he missed the point is what I find annoying and insulting.Right again. In all but a few cases, people don't "miss" anything (unless they're off getting popcorn). Everything hits them; it's how it hits them that makes the difference (and there are no right or wrong answers on that one, either).
And if there is a point, what is it. The movie was long and pointless to me.But if you like it fine. Just don't call it art. Dont put it with Spielbergs best because its not. It is not the equal of Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, ET, Schindlers List, Jurassic Park, Sugarland Express, Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Temple of Doom, Last Crusade, Lost World, Always, Hook, SPR, Amistad, 1941. It isn't better than them either.
Nope....gotta call you on that one. Denying someone's creation the label of "art" isn't in your pervue any more than rejecting someone's opinion because it isn't yours. Spielberg, Kubrick and the whole gang got together and expressed an ethical, emotional, and intellectual concept through storytelling, dramatic performance and cinema. That's art. Great art? Your call. "Great" is a subjective modifier, so that's up to you. But saying it isn't art at all simply because you didn't like it is on the same level as the gripes listed above.
And along the same lines, anyone certainly can feel free to "put it with Spielberg's best" if they so choose. Frankly, I would include it in the list you've provided, because I found it far superior to one of Spielberg's real duds, Always (my opinion, of course....
).The thing is movie enjoyment is based on personal preferences and personal tastes.You just proved my point.
However, to pick up on another subject in this thread....Close Encounters is in fact a masterpiece from beginning to end....and anyone who says otherwise has MISSED THE POINT and is DEAD WRONG!!! ROTFL
We should be thankful that things like A.I. are actually being funded with Hollywood dollars instead of another Battlefield Earth!Amen to that...! Perhaps the wisest point proferred in this thread.
- Uni
-
All right....this seems as good a place as any to drop my comments on A.I., something I was planning on doing shortly anyway. As usual, given my time crunch and finances, I'm waaaay behind the times when it comes to the JW Experience (AOTC was a rare exception). At long last, I finally saw A.I. for the first time the other night (ordered it on PPV), then watched it again, with my wife this time, a couple of evenings later. I've had to spend a year avoiding spoiler-ridden posts and discussions on the movie - something that has frustrated me to no end - and now at last I can finally throw my own battered hat into the pile filling center ring. (It's probably not necessary, given that this whole thread has dipped pretty liberally into the story, but it's become customary policy to forewarn of plot giveaways before going any further. Just in case.)
As the film began, I was ready for anything....ready to love it, ready to be dourly disappointed, ready to experience any one of the wide range of reactions expressed by the frequenters of this forum - or maybe even something new. So what did I think? :roll:
I thought it was wonderful. I was captivated from the first scene on, for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, this is a film that challenged me to think, not just intellectually but morally and ethically, and that alone earns high marks any day of the week. I was enthralled by visuals that were as extraordinary as any I've seen (there is a major difference between CGI painting an entire landscape before our eyes and having it inserted into landscape with which we're already familiar). The performances were outstanding - for the most part, anyway. I think Monica was misplayed to some degree, and that did a bit to undermine the emotional hub of the story. But Jude Law found a part that was his for the taking and creating, and he made a secondary character as fascinating and compelling as anything in the story. And as far as I'm concerned, Haley Joel Osment can do anything he sets his mind to. I was already sold on him in The Sixth Sense; here he hit a mark that few adult actors could find, the ability to navigate a set of dramatic circumstances that were stacked against him from the beginning (the movie's central question - can a human love a robot back - was answered early on, leaving him to weave a new premise for himself). William Hurt found just the right note for the scientist whose stands cheerful and exultant in the face of his own unwitting betrayal, having not searched the ultimate ramifications of his experimenting; it would have been easier and less responsible to portray this character as a cold corporate type interested only in making money.
I loved the poetic and symbolic mode of both the visuals and the screenplay. This was one of those movies that's almost a new experience the second time around, as we catch the setup of significant symbols we didn't understand or remember upon the initial viewing. Countless threads are spun out and reattached later, and each time I heard or saw a significant line or image repeated, I nodded my head and grinned. Some people find this technique redundant and trite; if done well (and I think it was here), I find it exhilarating. Stories just aren't told like this often enough any more. We've come to look for pure action or simple character observation in our films, and I think we've lost something in Hollywood's near inability to awe us with storytelling style.
Still, I could easily see why people were polarized on the topic of this film. This is the sort of story that will draw a certain sort of person; anyone hoping for the simple magic of E.T. or looking for sheer entertainment will be at best disappointed, at worst repelled, by its fablistic qualities. It's the difference between the old, forgotten fairy tales and nursery rhymes and their newer, Disneyized manifestations. Despite their children's-fantasy packaging, stories like this were once written to express fairly deep philisophical conundrums, and they didn't always opt for the happy ending or pat answer. They often left the story unfinished, leaving the reader to work out the issues on their own. (Nowadays, especially in America, anything less than a happy ending leaves the audience unsatisfied and usually in a foul mood.)
That's the direction the movie was taking as the second act came to a close. This would have been just that sort of fable's conclusion if the end credits started to roll after the camera pulled away from David's underwater captivity (anyone else notice the ol' Spielbergian ferris wheel mishap?), and I would have been satisfied if the film had ended there. It would have opened up an entirely new venue of thought concerning David's programmed desires, and would have answered very differently the question of his wishes coming true (though I daresay it would not have done any more to mollify those who already disliked the film). But Kubirck being who he was, that's not how it ended, which brings us to the divisive issue of the third act.
This part really made me think, and I'll confess that not all my thoughts were positive. While I'm a sucker for grand-scale sci-fi business like this, and though I thought the aliens looked really cool, the story took such a jarring left turn that I was sure to wear a neckbrace the second time through. There were compelling moments here, and a few more interesting questions arose, but ultimately the last act doesn't work. After considering it for a while, I think I figured out why (at least for me).
The format, look, and feel of the film to this point struck me as reminiscent of fantasy on several literary levels, at least three of which took the fore: The Quest, Fairy Tale and High Romance. Now, there's nothing wrong with taking several approaches like this - as long as each is fulfilled properly. Unfortunately, none of them were. Each had a fatal flaw that undermined its success and resulted in a very awkward ending.
Take the story as a Quest, for instance. It fell short because the essential purpose of relating such a story is for us to follow the deeds (and misdeeds) of the heroes all the way to the journey's fulfillment, to see how the ends they reach justify their means. Here, the hero reaches a stopping point - and then waits while the end of the Quest is brought to him. We don't see him overcoming; we see him overcome, and then given all the answers anyway. No fair. We're all subconsciously familiar enough with the millieu of the Quest for this to come across as cheating, and somehow we just can't buy it.
The context of Fairy Tales is fraught with magic, and when we enter that arena we're told to leave our disbelief at the door. Most often we'll concede, and from that point we'll gladly believe whatever we're told, no matter how unrealistic the circumstances. The rules are just different in Faery; here the most insurmountable problems can be solved by the most incredible creatures by the simple waving of a wand. However, the Blue Fairy in A.I. fails the test for the very reason that the answer doesn't come by magical means. Any wish-granting that requires a two-thousand year waiting period and the intervention of alien lifeforms has to be highly suspect. We can see the strings being pulled by the man behind the curtain. It's a botched coin trick. We'll believe in pure magic, yes, but mishandled slight-of-hand is another story entirely.
That leaves High Romance - which suffers nothing for the fact that the protagonist's true love was his mother. The genre pivots on a single person being the object of all the hero's desires. Good enough for me. However....I don't think it's too much to ask that at least one of the participants be the real deal. Here we have an artificial being pursuing the love of his very real mother....and what does he get? An even more artificial version of his mother, a woman who looks half drunk in her inability to show any authentic reaction to the events that have been crucial in the development of her son. And I completely agree with Rogue Leader, who cried foul at the whole "bring em back for a day" business. This is plot manipulation working overtime. Better to just make a clone, who will last long enough for the warranty to expire and who can eventually be taught to love in return (given the fact that there's no one else around to love, if nothing else).
So if the third act was such a dud (which it was, despite all the nifty graphics and a few more of those promising symbols thrown in), why did I love the film so much? Good question. I guess the rest of it was so good, a sour ending couldn't even spoil it. Regardless of how the story stumbles on its way to the finish line, the questions it asks (even though it gets the answers wrong for itself) were compelling enough to linger, and have stayed with me in the interrim. What Kubrick forgot, and Spielberg in his stead, I suppose, is that some of these questions are in their finest form when the solutions elude us. In spite of what the alien said, that's the truest demonstration of our genius: that those answers we can't find in the back of the book motivate us to search them out for ourselves, to expand our thinking and to grow to whatever extent will allow us to come to that essential realization. That's what makes us who we are. David started out on that path; it would have been nice to see him grow beyond his programming to find some of those answers for himself. But that was the storyteller's choice, and I for one am no less satisfied that I got to hear the story, regardless of how it ended.
- Uni
Back again...?
in General Discussion
Posted
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....