wanner251

I do respect those words, and I understand that you truly believe in this. But I just can't allow myself to buy it because when I look at it objectively, I see none of it. It seems more to me that Howard Shore is a better illusionist in this case. OK you win...

There are plenty of themes. However, the approach is more about capturing the broad scope of the world. Howard Shore paints with large brushstrokes to do so. Therefore, he does not really touch on any of the intricacies of the world or the story. It is much too epic. I believe that this was definitely intentional, but I think it has more to do with Howard Shore's limitations than it does his strengths. I think that he recognized his abilities as such, and decided to paint with large brush strokes for fear of being too segmented. This was a good decision for HIM, and it bodes well for his end result. But now, if you look at The Hobbit, it's all just a great deal more of the same thing, and so the difference in story, though related, cannot have its own sound. It's still all about the world. I long for something that captures the broad scope of the world, but also captures the intricacies of the characters of the story, not just the overall generic feel and emotion. The real emotion in LOTR is captured in its storytelling, not its score. The score acts in a very hands-off way. I wish it could be more involved. The finale of E.T. is the perfect example of what can happen when storytelling and music are perfectly joined together. It is a rare moment for which we should all be thankful.

You're missing my point. Yes, I understand that the score for LOTR captures LOTR very well, but in the process it "genericizes" itself. It is more about the world than it is about the story. It is actually quite amazing to me that people here don't seem to yearn at all for a better representation of both the world and the story. Howard Shore managed to find a good "sound" for Middle Earth, and then made that his generic approach, all the while not being very specific about anything at all. It is very emotional music, and I love it (please don't make the mistake again of assuming that I hate it), but the idea of writing a proper score for such an epic world and story, I think was beyond Howard Shore's scope, so he had to resort to the approach he took. This approach is very effective and beautiful, but I constantly yearn for something more fitting. If you are wondering what I mean by this, just look at The Hobbit, and tell me how that "formula" is working out.

Sorry about that post above... what I meant to say was....... *SNORE* Actually in all seriousness... One could probably take Journey to the Grey Havens and play it as an underscore to any part of any of the three films where there is no action or orcs in the mix, and it would work. Genius!

A wizard is never late.....

Journey to the Grey Havens is definitely some very pretty music. But I can't help to think that if you added driving Taiko drums to it, it would sound like Hans Zimmer........

The whole notion of that just seems "too hip for the room" kind of talk. I can see it now... film class... everyone watches the ending of E.T., and with berets and finger-snapping, the class agrees "Man, dig that downer music, turn it off, Daddy-O! I can't handle you right now, JW."

All he mentions is that there was a 6 month stint after John Williams resigned from the Boston Pops because he had creative differences with the orchestra. It was keeping to the theme that many critics of JW's music are overly dye-in-the-wool obsessed with strict classical concert music and feel that film music has no place in the concert hall. Apparently some members of the orchestra were taunting his music during a rehearsal, or something to that regard. So JW resigned for 6 months only to come back again. It's a very short bit...

All you guys who think that the ending works better without the music are way too cool for me... Anyway, where's KM?

I had a version by the Cincinnati Pops that was on Telarc... awfully good. I should check out that By Request recording. The Boston Pops is twice the orchestra that Cincinnati is.

I'm just getting around to listening to yesterday's program.... Man! It's so nice to hear the Olympic Fanfare again in its original form, with intro, instead of preceded by Bugler's Dream. I have to say I haven't heard it that way in quite some time. I have always loved it more!

YES

Thankfully that was a while ago...

Hollywood is known for such things.

Kamen, the master of compound meter, or at least the over exploitation of it. There was a time during the Robin Hood/Mr. Hollands Opus/101 Dalmatians era when I promised myself that if I ever had to hear another Michael Kamen triplet scherzo I would go hang myself.

I used to think I was a film music geek until I happened upon this place. I pale.... I pale...

Haha, if you read enough of my posts, you'll learn very quickly that I'm not nearly that clever... I was being serious you beautifully wonderful film-score geeks!!

I don't really think that the question is of artistry... There is plenty of artistry in both mediums. There are some beautiful CGI landscapes, and even amazingly drawn CGI characters.... Gollum comes to mind of course. I harken back to Jurassic Park, where when I first saw it, I was wondering where they got the real dinosaurs from... Yes, it was CGI, but it was new.... a new trick that tricked me. While I am definitely not as easily tricked now, there should be things out there that still trick me. Kind of like, watching the Star Wars Special Editions vs the originals. One clearly has more special effect movie magic wonder than the other....

Definitely a trend that I have been noticing about my own movie-going over the past 10 years or so has been that I am no longer completely enamored with the films I see. Even the good ones don't grab me anymore. One of the reasons I think is because there is so much CGI and green-screen work, that the magic goes away. I miss the days when I could watch a new movie and think to myself, wow how did they do that? I still watch some older films, and though I understand the method behind the magic, I am still amazed that someone would have thought to do such a thing. These days, the answer to that question is almost always the same: CGI. Even kids these days don't know what it's like to watch a film and actually be mesmerized by the action on the screen, since the pretty much understand how it was done. If you show them an older film, they still think it's some primitive version of CGI. Then you explain to them that this scene here was shot with scale models, and that scene had a real hand-built set.... etc... they almost don't believe you. Has Hollywood run out of shock and awe? Could they possibly have some new tricks that can still mesmerize us without us saying, "Wow whoever did the composite for that totally fake CGI background was a pretty good artist"? How do we feel about this? As always, I admit I could be missing something, but the trend is definitely there. Is there another, more real solution?

True that.... There does not really exist that kind of staying power in Hollywood anymore. Although, I think that composers are a rare enough breed that they have the best chance of remaining at their posts if they are successful. But timeless and classic are no longer adjectives that we use to describe most modern films and scores.

Ok... I just wanted to make sure I wasn't hearing things that weren't there....

May I just say, that if I were on the Academy trying to judge who should win for best score, or in fact who should be nominated in the first place, I would definitely consult many of the regulars on this forum. Despite us all being rabid John Williams fans, the vast majority do know how to be objective in these types of matters. We do have quite the collective going here. I would trust you people over the Academy any day...

The Social Network was a thief in the night. It should never have even been nominated. How to Train Your Dragon should have run away with it that year.

I do know that there are times when JW is nominated, and I want him to win merely because I know that he is 100x the composer that the other nominees are. Then I take it personally when he loses. The days are gone when it was JW vs Marvin Hamlisch or JG or Ennio Morricone or John Barry. So it's JW vs all these newcomers, who have very little experience in comparison, but can crank out some really good stuff once in a while. Sometimes this stuff is just a perfect match for the film it is assigned, in which case it should probably win. But I measure it by a different criteria, which is really irrelevant to the Oscars.