Jump to content

The tracked ending of "Ants!" in Crystal Skull


Pelzter
 Share

Recommended Posts

The album version seemed to perfectly match the image in the film of Indy picking up the hat, and this edit is now actually the only thing which irritates me about the score in the movie, especially since it is one of if not the best Indy March statement on the album. The film version, tracked in from earlier, is far too slow and does not match the images at all.

Anyone know why this was done? And don't just say "Because Lucas and Burtt are dumb-asses," something a little more constructive.

PS: And would there be a way to, using some audio software, to reinstate this snippet into the films 5.1 soundtrack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 20
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Obviously, they (probably Spielberg) wanted a more forceful statement of the theme, and since the recording sessions were over they had to use a pre-existing bit of music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case, it's ironic, since the piece they used are significantly LESS forceful than the original cue.

That's your opinion. Although I would have preferred the original cue, the one used seems very nostalgic to me and many others, I'm sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The jarring nature of tracked music serves to grab the audience's attention, thereby emphasizing the on-screen action. It's a brilliant gesture that should be used more often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the movie without listening to the soundtrack first, and when it got to that part, I was thinking it sounded wrong. It is the worst at the end of that Indy statement when we cut back to the action. Totally wrong mood.

And isn't it just a little sad, that no composer in the world is trusted by their director on those little differences of opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And isn't it just a little sad, that no composer in the world is trusted by their director on those little differences of opinion?

Film is a collaborative process; unless you're the one calling all the shots, you have to expect to get your feet stepped on at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And isn't it just a little sad, that no composer in the world is trusted by their director on those little differences of opinion?

Film is a collaborative process; unless you're the one calling all the shots, you have to expect to get your feet stepped on at some point.

Understood, but what I mean is, after 100 years of film, it would only make sense that at least one director in history would defer to the composer when they were in doubt over something so small. After 100 years of developing film music and decades long careers, there are still no composers who are fully trusted by their directors. More specifically, you would think that John Williams, of all composers, the most successful film composer of all time, would be fully trusted to score a scene at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And isn't it just a little sad, that no composer in the world is trusted by their director on those little differences of opinion?

Film is a collaborative process; unless you're the one calling all the shots, you have to expect to get your feet stepped on at some point.

Understood, but what I mean is, after 100 years of film, it would only make sense that at least one director would defer to the composer when they were in doubt over something so small. After 100 years of film, there are still no composers who are fully trusted by their directors.

Uh... are you being facetious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And isn't it just a little sad, that no composer in the world is trusted by their director on those little differences of opinion?

Film is a collaborative process; unless you're the one calling all the shots, you have to expect to get your feet stepped on at some point.

Understood, but what I mean is, after 100 years of film, it would only make sense that at least one director would defer to the composer when they were in doubt over something so small. After 100 years of film, there are still no composers who are fully trusted by their directors.

Uh... are you being facetious?

See amendment above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if you're serious in saying that no composer in the entire history of film music has ever been fully trusted by a director. That would imply that you're familiar with every director/composer relationship there's ever been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you were there of have access to the entire post production staff and Williams and Spielberg you will never know. Decisions like this are made because of reason we are not meant to understand and sometimes the reasons aren't very spectacular and creative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if you're serious in saying that no composer in the entire history of film music has ever been fully trusted by a director. That would imply that you're familiar with every director/composer relationship there's ever been.

It's a dry sarcasm, but only so dry because it may not be far from true. The sarcasm comes from the fact that you would think, if any composer would be trusted on such tiny quibbles as a few bars of music here and there, it would be "The John Williams". I mean, not to put him on an undeserved pedestal, but I would think that if someone with such experience and accomplishment generally gets the cue right, you shouldn't bother microtracking the music to suit your precious little fancy. Maybe a director would benefit from microtracking a student composer's score or a hack's score (no names), but not in a piece where everything was so carefully thought out and painstakingly done by a master.

Now all this is not to say he is above criticism, but if he so well satisfied the director with 95% of the music, maybe the other 5% is just a matter of personal preference, and one should relinquish total control in favor of an intact musical flow. Maybe it will seem right later on. Intelligent directors often say if they don't understand the score right away, they do later. Besides, it's not gonna make or break the film if 5% of the music is less than stellar, but for people with ears, microedits interrupt the flow of a scene.

A film editor is not a musician. Some film editors are skilled at editing music, but I would add, most of them are probably accomplished musicians in some form or another. While a director may feel very self-satisfied by microtracking the score to their film, the effect is usually subliminally jarring for the general audience, and that because a director is not a student nor master of harmonic movement, nor musical tension and release, nor do they have any idea how to create a proper chord progression. And I don't say it's just Lucas. Spielberg is the number 2 retracking control freak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.