Nick1Ø66

In any case, Neary made the right call. Those kids were bratty and his wife was a shrew. Perhaps Neary's punishment is that they love Goofy Golf on ET's planet. Or at the very least, the inflight movie on the Mothership was Ten Commandments.

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. I don't remember him ever saying he can't "stand behind" CE3K, or even disparage it (though I could be wrong about this and perhaps you've seen a quote that I have not). I do remember him saying something about being naive at the time (which you'd expect a filmmaker looking back on his early work to do), but I believe that was in the context of Roy Neary choosing to fly way with ET at the end...i.e. Spielberg said the younger version of himself would have done that, but the older one would have stayed with his family. In any event, I've always gotten the impression he's quite fond of CE3K, even if he doesn't consider it among his best work.

Perspective.

He overdoes it with his usual frowns, facial expressions and vocal mannerisms I also didn't like the scene in Bagend were Gandalf suddenly turns angry. It's a redo of the scene were Gandalf get's pissed at Bilbo for calling him a thief.. That scene worked, even with the redundant CGI. In the Hobbit it's like....whaaa? Yeah, agreed. In FOTR it works wonderfully, not so much in The Hobbit. Jackson clearly just stuck it in there, and I'm not sure if its ineffectiveness is because it had been done before, or because it just doesn't work in that context. And it's because of moment's like this that I think the preferred way to watch all 6 of Jackson's films when they are done is the original order they were released...i.e. LOTR then The Hobbit movies. Despite The Hobbit coming first chronologically, like the Star Wars prequels, there are too many "echoes" of the original films, I believe, to make watching chronologically a wholly satisfactory experience. I'm curious as to how the Thorin/Azog confrontation at the end played originally when there were only two films.

This is pretty spot on, I feel much the same way about it. And yeah, both Ian Holm and Elijah Wood feel "off". I'm not sure if it's their age, or the dialogue they've been given, but it doesn't quite work. I don't dislike it, and I'm not sure I'd want it take out, because there's a sentimental value to it (which is why it's there in the first place), but it's probably unnecessary. Wood in particular almost seems self-concious. And McKellen, in the early scenes, does look like someone doing a very good impersonation of Gandalf, but as you said he settled into it. I enjoyed this film much more than I thought I would. I loved LOTR, but had my concerns about The Hobbit from the first preview. Most of those concerns were allayed, and while it's not perfect, if you just go with it it's easy to get swept away. If LOTR is more of an epic saga, The Hobbit feels more like a fairy tale. Viewed that way, it succeeds remarkably. I've only been here a short while but I think this is at least the third time I've found myself agreeing with something you've written.

Yeah, that happened to me sometime about half way through side one of the first Star Wars LP.

Does anyone know what Williams, or a composer of his calibre, makes for a score (not taking into account soundtrack royalties)? What's the range? I really have no idea.

No worries, you're perfectly entitled to be wrong.

Corrected. no incorrected. I am LOL at the idea that anything LOTR is better than ET, Jaws, Superman, or any of the others I listed. I pity you sir. Don't get me wrong, many of those scores you've listed are outstanding, and count among my favorites. But LOTR is in a very rare class that includes Star Wars, and not much else.

Corrected.

I loved what he did with Contact and Cast Away (though there wasn't much to the latter). But as a successor to Williams? Nah. That's not knock on Silvestri, I just don't think that's him. But this "successor to Williams" stuff is just fan boy talk anyway. There will never be a successor to Williams. It's not that someone as talented as Williams isn't out there, or won't be. It's just that Hollywood has changed so much, and Williams had the good fortune of timing and incredible talent...along with a unique relationship with a couple very influential filmmakers. Sure, others will adopt his style, he's clearly been the most influential film composer in history (after Zimmer, of course). But when he's gone, I think that era of film scoring goes with him, and I doubt we will see anything quite like that...or him...again.

Does anyone else think Williams insists on being called Maestro in his personal life?

You could make the argument that Star Trek 2009 was the best of the Trek films because it had that snow creature that almost ate Kirk, only to get eaten itself by an even bigger snow creature. Just like what happened with Jar-Jark Binks, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Gon and those giant sea creatures in the planet core scene from Phantom Menace. Remember how that huge fish was going to eat their ship, but only another huge creature came and ate it! Just like that. Only in the snow. And with Kirk instead of Jar-Jar. I'd also like to point out at this time that Jar-Jar has floppy ears, whereas Spock's are pointed. Does any other Trek movie have huge snow creatures? I didn't think so.

Agree completely. Williams has a much more substantial body of work than Shore, and William's doing a run of the mill score is better than your average Shore score. But, in terms of Lord of the Rings, the only thing I can think of that surpasses it for Williams in quality, breath and scope is Star Wars (as a whole). The difference between Williams and Shore is that the drop off from Lord of the Rings to Shore's other work is pretty substantial, whereas several of William's scores measure up quite well against Star Wars. Shore just outdid himself on LOTR.

Yeah, I felt the same way...the cast was the best part of that movie. They really nailed it...too bad the rest of the film didn't resemble Trek much.

Sure, Star Trek 2009 was an entertaining enough, if not forgettable, science fiction action film. I had a lot of fun watching it. It just wasn't Trek.

Now see, if you were a farmer, shit would be a good thing. Cow shit's good for crops and sheep shit's used for mushrooms. You'd pay good money for good shit. Shit would be your bread and butter. Yeah. And Star Trek's shit has buttered a lot of bread over the years (mostly Paramounts). First Contact is OK. It's the best of those (Next Gen) movies, and I liked it well enough when it came out, but it hasn't held up that well for me. I think of the Star Trek movies as being greater than the sum of their parts. Out of 11, I'd say there are a couple truly great ones, a couple good ones, some mediocre ones and yeah, some shit. But altogether, they were pretty fun. Kind of like how out of six Star Wars films, there are really only two outstanding ones I'd consider classics. Than you've got two good, but not great ones, and a couple relatively weak films in there. But taken as a whole, the saga is outstanding...if flawed.

Hmmmm. I've always wondered about that. In a society where everything is either done via voice command, or some sort of nebulous pushing of random buttons and swiping pads, how is Scotty so fast and proficient at a QWERTY keyboard? Indeed, significantly faster than a 20th century professional typist would be. Has anyone ever seen any character on Star Trek using a QWERTY keyboard before Scotty's masterful display? I think these people recognizing 20th century technology is one thing, but would they know how to use most of it? Probably not. And yes, there are doubtless countless antiquated artifacts from our own history that most of us have never seen or even heard of, because they have been forgotten with disuse and are only of interest to historians, anthropologists, archaeologists and bored Ph.d's. These items may have been everyday items in Mesopotamia that any idiot could use, but most of us would likely not even begin to be able to understand what they were used for...much less actually use them. That doesn't make us stupid, or uneducated. And I actually found Tom Paris' fascination with the 20th century to be contrived, silly and unbelievable...a way of trying to make a connection with the audience and make some inside jokes, but it just came across as forced and ham handed.

Yes, the Next Gen movies are shit, and yes, they are cannon. The JJ Abrams movie is shit Trek also (though decent cinema under any other name). There actually hasn't been a really good Star Trek movie since Save The Whales, though VI was entertaining enough.

You mean you've never heard the original version of the Main Title, as it was presented on the LP, original CD, and Anthology collection?

Most of us owned the OSTs to these scores early on (back when that's all there was to be had), and pined for the day when we'd get expanded or complete versions. When that day finally came, many of us switched to the newer versions and sent the OSTs to the back of the bin—for good, or so we thought. I've come to have a new appreciation for those older versions. They may not be as faithful to the film, but they offer their own unique listening experiences. For instance, my cassette (!) copy of the OST for E.T. busted not long before the 20th Anniversary release of the expanded score. So it made for an easy, and welcome, transfer. But after a while I started longing to hear the pieces again as they were originally presented—and I couldn't, because I couldn't seem to find an OST copy of E.T. anywhere in the world. It's like they all vanished after the new one came out. When I finally tracked one down (and it took several years, believe it or not), I celebrated almost as much as when the expanded version hit the shelves. "E.T. and Me" is a piece that ranks near the top among Williams' most beautiful, but you can't get it on the newer release. It only exists on the OST . . . making that version a commodity I never imagined it would be. It's the same with Close Encounters. It doesn't contain "concert versions" like E.T., but it edits together separate passages from different parts of the film. I used to look down my nose at that—back when that's all I had—but after listening to "The Mountain" a hundred times, I began missing how it used to move seamlessly into the latter half of "The Returnees" to create a listening experience that's euphoric in its granduer and grace. I now keep both versions on my player, since I never know which I'll be in the mood to hear. It seems everything has come full circle to the point where all variations have their own unique value and charm. That's certainly the case for CE3K . . . and I certainly would recommend you give it a try. - Uni Yeah, I agree with this, and I think it's particularly true of William's scores. To this day when I hear the Main Title on the original Star Wars LP (before it was A New Hope), I keep expecting it to segue into that quasi-overture rather than Imperial Attack. And while I love and prefer the Special Edition Star Wars CD releases for their completeness, the original LP was sequenced and put together in such a thoughtful, masterful way at the time, and I still find myself going back to it occasionally.

McNeely has a long-time and existing relationship w/Disney, which is why I think he might have the upper hand. Giacchino seems like an obvious choice, but he has the same Star Trek problem Abrams has in getting involved with Star Wars at this point. And no matter who does it, I don't want to see a "drastically different" direction taken w/the score, ala Harry Potter. Obviously any self-respecting composer is going to want to put his own mark on the material, and expand upon whats come before, but I'd like to see it kept thematically and musically as close to the work Williams did as possible.

Ah. Anyway, how about that Joel McNeely!

Um.... ....what?

I doubt Williams will score these. I'd guess Joel McNeely.