Goldsmithfan

Uh oh. Do you guys hate that score or something? I haven't personally sat down and listened to the score, but I know Paramount forced Silvestri to include a synthesized bass line in his action cues so as to mimic Graeme Revell's first score. That was definitely a gratuitously stupid move.

I LOVE the score to Predator! I've loved it ever since I saw the film when I was six. When I'd play soldiers (or whatever the hell I played when I was six) I'd always wind up humming that score because, even at six, I knew it was an excellent action score. Although, I didn't know that many six year olds (aside from people at this site and others like it) probably don't do that. Anyway, it's one of the great scores of the past century, in my opinion. It hails from the days when composers knew how to use electronics and knew the difference between bombastic and nuanced. Now it just seems like scores are all or nothing. In your face or not there at all. This one touches all the bases of film scoring aside from blatant beauty (a love theme basically). But, other than that, it's missing nothing. Not to say that I wish it had a love theme. In an action score as dense and intricate as Predator, it's not needed. Oh, and the fact that there wasn't a love story in the film. Unless you count the hate/hate relationship between Dillon and Anna. As a small sidenote, I bought the 34 track version not a week before it was released legitimately. That pissed me off, to say the least. I had to write Varese and ask them to hold onto a copy for me because I lacked sufficient funds. Luckily, they did. But, rants aside, it's probably my favorite and the most addictive Silvestri score I've heard.

No.

The film version of "The Emperor Arrives" right before "The Lightsaber" is the only thing that really distracts me. And man, does it distract the hell out of me. Couldn't the alternates have all waited until the end of the discs???

This has nothing to do with Superman. It's got everything to do with the fact that I saw the movie and was completely taken out of it by the score. It didn't fit and it was just plain horrible. After I saw the film I looked it up and found out it was from '78. The first thing I thought of was The Swarm to be perfectly honest. It's a coherant score. In any case, it's not a comparison with Superman or The Swarm that makes this a terrible score, it's the quality (or lack of quality) that makes this a huge travesty. I have no doubt that the voters were thinking along the lines you stated, but I really think they should go by quality. If they did, the awards would actually be able to do what they're meant to do.

And there have been many to speak of. Aside from Raiders losing to Chariots of Fire (I like some of Vangelis' work, but not quite that much) and Memoirs of a Geisha losing to Brokeback Mountain, Aladdin beat Basic Instinct and Star Trek IV was nominated period. What can I say? Morons.

I just saw that film last night and one of the first things that struck me was how awkward the music was. It didn't do much for the scenes besides detract . . . a lot. The chase music that everyone on Amazon goes nuts over seemed to be nothing more than monotonous, pop-based garbage that went nowhere. The other music in the movie wasn't much better. It just seemed to be a mismash of electronics and piano thrown in every once in a while for 'good'measure. So what was this score up against? Maybe in 1978 the only other scores that were nominated were those to pornos? I mean, come ON! There were no other Oscar worthy scores in '78! Gimme a break! Does Superman: The Movie ring a bell! How about Capricorn One? It's obvious that the Oscar board was asleep (or on crack) at the wheel on this one.

I don't remember . . . Probably 'cause I never knew.

. . . Because he had 'gold' in his name. Remember that episode of Seinfeld? "That's gold Jerry, GOLD!" No one ever had to tell Mr. Goldsmith Sr. that, because it was already in his blood. Boo-yah!

Incidentally, if I'm not mistaken, this is the only known source that mentions the telepathy scene between Vader and Luke. You can read the entire contents of the booklet at Markus Hable's excellent site right here. Thanks to everyone for the info. I didn't know these scenes even existed and I used to be a huge Star Wars fan. I always wondered about possible cut scenes at the beginning of the film. For some reason, it never felt 100% there, but I like the idea of building it up and making Luke seem ominous when he first appears.

I was going to make a post about this score when I showed up, but luckily I found this thread here already! Anyway, I just listened to the 2004 rerelease again yesterday (Didn't get the 1997 versions when they were still everywhere, but that's another story) and in track two there are about two minutes of music that I don't recognize as being in the film at all. In the movie, Vader leaves the shuttle bay with a fairly strong rendition of the Imperial March, which then leads to the droids and a light theme for them. I remember watching the film when I was about ten and thinking that the transition sounded a little choppy. Anyway, on the album, there is about two minutes of music between the music heard for Vader's exit and the droids on Tatooine. I was wondering what the SE booklets say about this cue. Anything about the difference between the music recorded and the music as heard in the film? Was it another slice n' dice job of tracking?

True story! This is just the Trek team pulling out all the stops in order to try to save their asses. They've got nothing left and they know it. Morons. You don't save a franchise by making a prequel. You save it by gettting the best story, composer, acting and directing you possibly can. Wait . . . They took their time with Nemesis and hardly anyone seemed to like it. Okay, the prequel is a bad idea, but I loved Nemesis. Star Trek fans are just getting dumbed down like the rest of the people being subjected to the crap Hollywood is churning out right now. It doesn't matter how good it is (which this one won't be), people will crap all over it because it's Star Trek. How the one with the Wars ever got the upper hand in the mainstream culture, I'll never know . . . Nemesis was the Wrath Of Khan with TNG. It wasn't fresh, the story was dumb. For a TV series the same formula may work week after week but for a major movie people want something special. Star Wars succeeded because Lucas managed to put something on screen that was entertaining and different. With heroes and villians, a princess and a galaxy of planets and aliens never seen before. Star Trek gets their chance on the big screen after years of planning and TMP ends up being a 2-1/2 hour mind numbing journey thru a cloud. Wow. I'm so tired of people saying that Nemesis was The Wrath of Khan redone that I'm not even going to touch it with a ten meter cattleprod. Basically, Star Wars is an action cereal. It gives the audience big explosions and laserbeams being deflected by energy swords (The deuce you say!) but it never delves that deep into the psyche of the viewer or the emotional context of the characters. I used to love those films so don't try to tell me I don't get it. With plot holes that clearly demonstrate Lucas' lack of forethought (the Leia and Luke arc) I believe that Star Wars is definitely the more flawed (and childish) of the two. Your comments about Star Trek - The Motion Picture clearly demonstrate what I've just said. Star Wars gives mindless action and Star TREK gives true stories of exploration. Most people don't want to actually think when they go to the cinema so Star Wars is the film series for the mainstream fans of films whereas Star Trek will never get the respect it deserves because it's not two and a half hours of people shooting at each other. I say this being a fan of only five of the ten Star Trek films . . . That's better than zero out of six though. I guess it's a matter of taste though. A slow-paced cerebral film versus a series that's basically a new take/'homage' to Flash Gordon and other adventure cereals of the thirties, right down to the scrolling text at the beginning. Not to say that THEY were the first to do it, but I guess when you look a little closer Star Wars isn't as fresh as some people like to believe. They all followed the same basic plot devices and themes. At least the Star Trek franchise had a large variance in tone and content, even if it wasn't a success every time. sorry to make you not want to touch it again with a 10 foot pole, but you need to get over your attitudes, and realize that Nemesis is indeed a rip off of Wrath of Kahn, which wouldn't be a bad thing if done well(see X-2), but it lacked everything that made Wrath of Kahn great. And as a movie I think Nemesis is among the worst Star Trek films, but it plays so much better on DVd, as its a small tale, that works well on TV, so much better than on the big screen. the director of Nemesis, Baird was the wrong choice, his vision was flawed, his storytelling ability as a director was small. Sad that Star Trek ended so poorly. I can now see the flawed thinking that went into my attempt at trying to make an argument for Star Trek on a board that's completely biased in the other direction. People seem to be so completely obsessed with Star Trek II and the like to even realize how terrible the acting was. It was an all right concept but it was very poorly executed. If Nemesis was a remake of The Wrath of Khan then they really missed most of the bases. Khan was a simple villain. "I'm angry because you put me on that rock and never checked on my party to make sure we were doing fine . . . Now I'm gonna blow you up!" Shinzon wasn't very much like Khan. He wold have been more like, "I'm a clone of you but I was raised by Remans so I AM Reman. I'm going to rescue my people from their current state of slavery any way possible . . . By the way, I need your blood." But, I'm not gonna argue anymore since people here are just as stubborn as I am and, in the end, they're just movies. (And, as stated above, nearly 40 years of TV.)

True story! This is just the Trek team pulling out all the stops in order to try to save their asses. They've got nothing left and they know it. Morons. You don't save a franchise by making a prequel. You save it by gettting the best story, composer, acting and directing you possibly can. Wait . . . They took their time with Nemesis and hardly anyone seemed to like it. Okay, the prequel is a bad idea, but I loved Nemesis. Star Trek fans are just getting dumbed down like the rest of the people being subjected to the crap Hollywood is churning out right now. It doesn't matter how good it is (which this one won't be), people will crap all over it because it's Star Trek. How the one with the Wars ever got the upper hand in the mainstream culture, I'll never know . . . Nemesis was the Wrath Of Khan with TNG. It wasn't fresh, the story was dumb. For a TV series the same formula may work week after week but for a major movie people want something special. Star Wars succeeded because Lucas managed to put something on screen that was entertaining and different. With heroes and villians, a princess and a galaxy of planets and aliens never seen before. Star Trek gets their chance on the big screen after years of planning and TMP ends up being a 2-1/2 hour mind numbing journey thru a cloud. Wow. I'm so tired of people saying that Nemesis was The Wrath of Khan redone that I'm not even going to touch it with a ten meter cattleprod. Basically, Star Wars is an action cereal. It gives the audience big explosions and laserbeams being deflected by energy swords (The deuce you say!) but it never delves that deep into the psyche of the viewer or the emotional context of the characters. I used to love those films so don't try to tell me I don't get it. With plot holes that clearly demonstrate Lucas' lack of forethought (the Leia and Luke arc) I believe that Star Wars is definitely the more flawed (and childish) of the two. Your comments about Star Trek - The Motion Picture clearly demonstrate what I've just said. Star Wars gives mindless action and Star TREK gives true stories of exploration. Most people don't want to actually think when they go to the cinema so Star Wars is the film series for the mainstream fans of films whereas Star Trek will never get the respect it deserves because it's not two and a half hours of people shooting at each other. I say this being a fan of only five of the ten Star Trek films . . . That's better than zero out of six though. I guess it's a matter of taste though. A slow-paced cerebral film versus a series that's basically a new take/'homage' to Flash Gordon and other adventure cereals of the thirties, right down to the scrolling text at the beginning. Not to say that THEY were the first to do it, but I guess when you look a little closer Star Wars isn't as fresh as some people like to believe. They all followed the same basic plot devices and themes. At least the Star Trek franchise had a large variance in tone and content, even if it wasn't a success every time.

True story! This is just the Trek team pulling out all the stops in order to try to save their asses. They've got nothing left and they know it. Morons. You don't save a franchise by making a prequel. You save it by gettting the best story, composer, acting and directing you possibly can. Wait . . . They took their time with Nemesis and hardly anyone seemed to like it. Okay, the prequel is a bad idea, but I loved Nemesis. Star Trek fans are just getting dumbed down like the rest of the people being subjected to the crap Hollywood is churning out right now. It doesn't matter how good it is (which this one won't be), people will crap all over it because it's Star Trek. How the one with the Wars ever got the upper hand in the mainstream culture, I'll never know . . .

But there were twelve of them! Why does the group at Media Ventures always seem to have to buddy up? They all pretty much write the same material over and over again. On second thought, maybe the buddying-up is where the homogenized sound comes from! In any case, I can only imagine two composers working together without butting heads. Twelve! You're gonna either kill each other or get done as fast as humanly possible. It's just not practical.

I concur with Mister Skywalker. I'm not saying this as a Star Wars or superhero fan (Haven't seen Batman Begins or Superman Returns and don't plan on it) but if Hamill were cast as Joker, I'd see the film just for the sake of seeing Mark Hamill as the Joker!

What's the 3:2 pulldown? I don't think I've ever heard of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_aejxvzP8I...rry%20goldsmith I figured this would be a good place to start. I keep hearing crap about Goldsmith supposedly having written music for Poltergeist III and then being rejected. Fast forward a few years and he supposedly used that score for The Haunting. Fast forward a few years more and we've got clips like this online. Personally, I think Goldsmith would have done a LOT more with the water sequence. It would have stood out much better, but that's just me! I'm in the school of thinking that people have too much time on their hands. How would they know what music was supposed to go where, even if it were true? I just want to hear other people's opinion.

That's got to be the single funniest slam on someone I've ever read at this site. While I don't quite share the same opinion of how highly overrated Giacchino is, I haven't heard anything really special, or even standout, in his work.

Couldn't they just recast the role? I mean, they didn't produce a digital Christopher Reeve to play Superman, so what's the point of this other than showing off their effects?

That's my sentiment exactly. There's nothing unique to scores anymore. Hell, considering the same is true for films (in America anyway) I'd say that there's a huge void in entertainment in general that needs to be filled . . . But it just seems like either no one wants to stand out of the crowd, or they just can't.

That's totally false. Turning up the volume on ANY media doesn't change the sound quality, only the VOLUME of it. The richness depends on the recording itself and the system it's being played on.

That's only when you don't take care of your records!

Well, Gremlins 2 was a very blatant comedy score so some silliness is to be expected. Poltergeist II was quite melodic with all its electronics. It was just a gigantic departure from the original score. The first was very ethereal and beautiful with nice horror passages and the second had all that with a ton of electronics and passages that sound like The Omen on LSD and crack . . . but in a really maniacally addictive fashion. Again, I don't mind the electronics so maybe it's just me!

He did' date='for Battle Beyond the Stars. k.M.[/quote'] I'm talking about quoting his Star Trek work in Star Trek II and III. And I've heard about this a couple of times from people but not heard Battle Beyond the Stars as of yet. What exactly did Horner steal this time?