mrbellamy

I feel like this is one aspect of it that I've found, that some of the stuff that seems to inspire the most outspoken frustration or criticism are not for the truly crappy things (can't remember the last time I saw somebody passionately railing against Uwe Boll or even Michael Bay?) but for the things that are almost good.
 
Giacchino is a good example of that here. I don't think any of the biggest critics of him think that he's untalented, far from it. Instead it often seems to come from this constant nagging "He could be better, why isn't he better??" Others include Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Nolan, Williams. It's probably easier to just casually dismiss something like a Transformers sequel when you sort of automatically accept that it never really had a shot of being good. It's not like you have to wrestle those opinions out of your head. Most people here aren't gonna give something like that the time of day, anyway.
 
But then try and ignore a Michael Giacchino superhero score or Christopher Nolan WWII movie or Ridley Scott Alien or David Lynch Twin Peaks or George Lucas Star Wars or Steven Spielberg Indiana Jones. Anything that could be really good becomes a target and people probably take to a forum more readily in those instances because it's like they need to reconcile the much more frustrating dichotomy between the prospect (if not total promise) of something being awesome and that same thing not actually being awesome. It's especially potent if the hype made you concoct some version that you'd now still rather think about after seeing the real thing, which you had hoped would fulfill/replace those vague fantasies of a new favorite which now aren't going away. Those thoughts can be hard to organize in your head so a forum makes a good excuse to put it down in front of you, making comparisons to what you expected vs what you got, what could have been changed or improved. Plus you can get feedback and hopefully positive reinforcement as opposed to just keeping a diary or something.

I feel like this is one aspect of it that I've found, that some of the stuff that seems to inspire the most outspoken frustration or criticism are not for the truly crappy things (can't remember the last time I saw somebody passionately railing against Uwe Boll or even Michael Bay?) but for the things that are almost good.
 
Giacchino is a good example of that here. I don't think any of the biggest critics of him think that he's untalented, far from it. Instead it often seems to come from this constant nagging "He could be better, why isn't he better??" Others include Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Nolan, Williams. It's probably easier to just casually dismiss something like a Transformers sequel when you sort of automatically accept that it never really had a shot of being good. It's not like you have to wrestle those opinions out of your head. Most people here aren't gonna give something like that the time of day, anyway.
 
But then try and ignore a Michael Giacchino superhero score or Christopher Nolan WWII movie or Ridley Scott Alien or David Lynch Twin Peaks or George Lucas Star Wars or Steven Spielberg Indiana Jones. Anything that could be really good becomes a target and people probably take to a forum more readily in those instances because it's like they need to reconcile the much more frustrating dichotomy between the prospect (if not total promise) of something being awesome and that same thing not actually being awesome. It's especially potent if the hype made you concoct some version that you'd now still rather think about after seeing the real thing, which you had hoped would fulfill/replace those vague fantasies of a new favorite which now aren't going away. Those thoughts can be hard to organize in your head so a forum makes a good excuse to put it down in front of you, making comparisons to what you expected vs what you got, what could have been changed or improved. Plus you can get feedback and hopefully positive reinforcement as opposed to just keeping a diary or something.

Well, there are a few things at play here, in my opinion.
 
1)  People are generally more vocal about things that they dislike than things they like.  On the flipside, it's often easier to talk about things you dislike than things you like.  For those reasons, the people who dislike things are usually the loudest voices in the room.
 
2)  Culture has, over time, become less earnest and more sarcastic.  Generationally, that sarcasm has become watered down into a more humorless cynicism.
 
3) Our outreach ability has grown exponentially in the past 20 years.  Instead of using that blessing to expand our horizons and worldview,  we've largely made our worlds smaller by congregating in large groups of people who share our own values and opinions. 
 
In those echo chambers, what once was a maybe slightly disappointed "It wasn't for me" is followed up with a dozen more, until it becomes an angry "IT WASN'T FOR US!"  In my opinion, that makes us hate things instead of just disliking things.

I feel like this is one aspect of it that I've found, that some of the stuff that seems to inspire the most outspoken frustration or criticism are not for the truly crappy things (can't remember the last time I saw somebody passionately railing against Uwe Boll or even Michael Bay?) but for the things that are almost good.
 
Giacchino is a good example of that here. I don't think any of the biggest critics of him think that he's untalented, far from it. Instead it often seems to come from this constant nagging "He could be better, why isn't he better??" Others include Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Nolan, Williams. It's probably easier to just casually dismiss something like a Transformers sequel when you sort of automatically accept that it never really had a shot of being good. It's not like you have to wrestle those opinions out of your head. Most people here aren't gonna give something like that the time of day, anyway.
 
But then try and ignore a Michael Giacchino superhero score or Christopher Nolan WWII movie or Ridley Scott Alien or David Lynch Twin Peaks or George Lucas Star Wars or Steven Spielberg Indiana Jones. Anything that could be really good becomes a target and people probably take to a forum more readily in those instances because it's like they need to reconcile the much more frustrating dichotomy between the prospect (if not total promise) of something being awesome and that same thing not actually being awesome. It's especially potent if the hype made you concoct some version that you'd now still rather think about after seeing the real thing, which you had hoped would fulfill/replace those vague fantasies of a new favorite which now aren't going away. Those thoughts can be hard to organize in your head so a forum makes a good excuse to put it down in front of you, making comparisons to what you expected vs what you got, what could have been changed or improved. Plus you can get feedback and hopefully positive reinforcement as opposed to just keeping a diary or something.

I can see him going back into his Ralph Vaughan Williamsy, Far and Away/War Horse mode for the island stuff.

The theatre-going crowd, and especially the theater critics do not necessarily overlap with the people who like Harry Potter. Those people could have judged it on its own, being ignorant of how it fits into the HP universe. The majority of fans could only read the book, and they are the ones who would be concerned with the botched characterizations, uninspired and unfitting storyline, massacred lore and overall insultingly lazy stuff like 
.

My only real hope for the score is that it's its own thing and not a Home Alone 2/COS style retread. Probably won't be an issue with a new writer/director (and one who generally has little in common with JJ Abrams) but so much of the core material should carry over and the narrative will pick up right away from TFA so I do hope he gets the right balance of continuity with new stuff. Wonder what's more likely: Williams relying too heavily on TFA's sound and thematic material or not enough?
 
I do hope he keeps pushing Rey's Theme, and would be cool to get some opportunities for more indulgent renditions. At least one reference each of Resistance March and Poe's theme would be good, I wouldn't even mind getting more of the latter than TFA if his part is bigger. Wonder how well it would translate to a more dramatic setting, for example.
 
Kylo's two motifs I can sort of take or leave tbh, I'm just not sure how much more he can get out of them in those muted brass/low woodwind settings. But if he can keep finding ways to expand them melodically, texturally, harmonically etc then great. Just want evolution in the character and his music.
 
And something besides the Force theme to end the film....please.

I can see him going back into his Ralph Vaughan Williamsy, Far and Away/War Horse mode for the island stuff.

I can see him going back into his Ralph Vaughan Williamsy, Far and Away/War Horse mode for the island stuff.

Lol this guy wrote Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. Goddammit.
 
And I think it's probably just bad reporting, then, because Johnson did say point blank that it was old news.

Not sure about Lincoln (30 days seems too low, though, even for Spielberg) but Bridge of Spies was 59 days so I assume this was something similar. Not sure if those would be 5 or 6 day weeks, but anyway they're probably getting close.
 
 
 
Reminds me that I saw a few more pics posted last week, including Spielberg on location with green screen:
 

 

 

First orchestration attempt  took a stab at a pretty silly but nice and simple piano score I did in high school.
 
 

I managed to squeeze out another minute or so out of the JW-style action track I posted a few weeks ago:
 
(the thumbnail comes from a released piece of Rogue One concept art)
 
As I say in the description it's more like a romp through various Williams mannerisms rather than a perfectly cohesive piece of music. For the longest time I've just had this itch to write some crazy full-blast action material...and after 100 seconds I can say that that itch has been thoroughly scratched. I hope you enjoy!
 
 
Not bad at all, I think there's some great material in the opening 22 seconds. I can imagine it sounding even better if it was played slower (and played by a real orchestra of course). I like the tone of the later oom-pah material, especially from 0:48. Before that I felt that there were too many different notes which obstructed the musical picture - some simpler writing would have given a greater sense of direction. In general the comment I'd make is that the different sections of the orchestra do not support each other as much as they could do. But for a first orchestration attempt it sounds promising!