The Journey to the Grey Havens Vs. / Saying Goodbye (from E.T.)

[KK 3,307]

Journey to the Grey Havens is sublime. I find its incredibly beautiful tranquility transcendent and boy has it helped me in my times of need.

But you're putting it up against one of the greatest finales ever composed. Not a very fair competition when compared to one of JW's greatest works.

[wanner251 17]

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........

[Uni 306]

Wow. There were at least a dozen bits I wanted to quote in this thread. Got to be too many, so I'll stick with one:

The kid wants to be an adult, the adult wants to be a kid.

This isn't cheesy at all. You just summed up—with sublime elegance and brevity—what I think may be the heart of this entire discussion.

You can count me among the E.T. devotees in this case . . . but I think a large measure of that is due to the kid in this adult. This movie was, I believe, the first tangible tear-jerker I ever experienced. It had a profound effect on me when it came out—no doubt because I was Elliott's age at the time. The connection was palpable, lasting, and formative, and it's only natural that it would lead me to hold this piece of music (as others have already confessed on their own part) as the greatest marriage of film and music, like, ever.

Wait—sorry.I lied. I have to pull one more quote in here:

Williams and Spielberg talk a lot about synch throughout this long piece and while it's the case that they were on a technical level, it's never mentioned by anyone that in those final closing seconds as the ship lifts off director and composer were in synch on much more than than just a technical level. It was there mentally and spiritually, too. Powerful stuff.

As a side note . . . one of the reasons this is so well "synched" (creatively, technically, timing-wise, and in every other way) was because the final scene was edited to the music instead of the other way around, as is usually the case. Spielberg invested an unprecedented amount of trust in his composer, and we're all the beneficiaries of that decision.

Anyway. The point I was making is that we can analyze these things as thinking adults, but often it's the capricious and impressionable "child" pulling us one way or the other. I love the music Shore composed for the Grey Havens sequence. I think it's a magnificent ending to a glorious film. It's completely appropriate, well-arranged, and hits all the right notes (you can take or leave the pun). But I can't imagine how I could ever bring myself to allow it to outrank the final scene in E.T. Maybe I'm biased. Maybe it's better that I am; it means I have emotional attachments to certain influences, and that's what shapes me as a person, and I don't think I'd want it otherwise. And "Saying Goodbye"—though I'm with Joey on this one: this is the end of "Adventures on Earth"—just can't be knocked from its place on the throne.

However . . . I'm much more amenable to discussing how "Into the West" is the superlative end title piece of music, as compared to the "Flying" theme. . . .

- Uni

[BloodBoal 7,538]

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........

[KK 3,307]

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........

???

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

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........

Interesting. But I can't help to think that if this post was written in crayon, you'd think a five year old wrote it......

[Quintus 5,399]

Hehe

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Wow. There were at least a dozen bits I wanted to quote in this thread. Got to be too many, so I'll stick with one:

The kid wants to be an adult, the adult wants to be a kid.

This isn't cheesy at all. You just summed up—with sublime elegance and brevity—what I think may be the heart of this entire discussion.

You can count me among the E.T. devotees in this case . . . but I think a large measure of that is due to the kid in this adult. This movie was, I believe, the first tangible tear-jerker I ever experienced. It had a profound effect on me when it came out—no doubt because I was Elliott's age at the time. The connection was palpable, lasting, and formative, and it's only natural that it would lead me to hold this piece of music (as others have already confessed on their own part) as the greatest marriage of film and music, like, ever.

Wait—sorry.I lied. I have to pull one more quote in here:

Williams and Spielberg talk a lot about synch throughout this long piece and while it's the case that they were on a technical level, it's never mentioned by anyone that in those final closing seconds as the ship lifts off director and composer were in synch on much more than than just a technical level. It was there mentally and spiritually, too. Powerful stuff.

As a side note . . . one of the reasons this is so well "synched" (creatively, technically, timing-wise, and in every other way) was because the final scene was edited to the music instead of the other way around, as is usually the case. Spielberg invested an unprecedented amount of trust in his composer, and we're all the beneficiaries of that decision.

Anyway. The point I was making is that we can analyze these things as thinking adults, but often it's the capricious and impressionable "child" pulling us one way or the other. I love the music Shore composed for the Grey Havens sequence. I think it's a magnificent ending to a glorious film. It's completely appropriate, well-arranged, and hits all the right notes (you can take or leave the pun). But I can't imagine how I could ever bring myself to allow it to outrank the final scene in E.T. Maybe I'm biased. Maybe it's better that I am; it means I have emotional attachments to certain influences, and that's what shapes me as a person, and I don't think I'd want it otherwise. And "Saying Goodbye"—though I'm with Joey on this one: this is the end of "Adventures on Earth"—just can't be knocked from its place on the throne.

However . . . I'm much more amenable to discussing how "Into the West" is the superlative end title piece of music, as compared to the "Flying" theme. . . .

- Uni

That's because we're disciples of the original soundtrack and it's one long long piece, Adventures on Earth, and it's our adventure as well as E.T. and Elliot's, and has been now for 31 years.

[indy4 155]

Adventures on Earth, and it's our adventure as well as E.T. and Elliot's,

[wanner251 17]

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!

[Faleel 5,342]

I could play adventures on earth for a lot of scenes in alot of movies, (it would require editing in a lot of cases but,) that doesnt make a difference.

[wanner251 17]

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.

[Faleel 5,342]

Your post is very vague, I have no Idea what you mean, are you saying there are no themes? (Not that I think so..) or what?

HS's take is much more impressive than the repetitive string and brass run filled "TV Music" in Rosenman's take (

).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I found Rosenman's effort a little pedestrian, and lacking in depth.

[Incanus 5,713]

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.

I don't quite understand what you mean by this "genericizing" in the case of Lord of the Rings scores. Also "not being very specific about anything at all" needs a bit more elaboration as well. But perhaps we should take this discussion into some proper thread, there are after all more of them than JW threads around here at this moment.

[wanner251 17]

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.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Adventures on Earth, and it's our adventure as well as E.T. and Elliot's,

indy 4 and his stupidity at play.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

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.

[Incanus 5,713]

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.

Well if anything Shore's music is intricate to the tiniest detail of the story and the characters as well. The whole trilogy is full of subtext which speaks of much deeper things than what is apparent on screen. It really does delve much deeper than what a regular film score usually does. The fact that it uses the cultures of Middle Earth as a musical foundation doesn't really exclude emotion or focus on the characters.

[wanner251 17]

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[wanner251 17]

Well if anything Shore's music is intricate to the tiniest detail of the story and the characters as well. The fact that it uses the cultures of Middle Earth as a musical foundation doesn't really exclude emotion or focus on the characters.

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...

[Incanus 5,713]

Well if anything Shore's music is intricate to the tiniest detail of the story and the characters as well. The fact that it uses the cultures of Middle Earth as a musical foundation doesn't really exclude emotion or focus on the characters.

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.

Objectively? If you truly objectively look at this then please read Doug Adams' book The Music of the Lord of the Rings Films and then tell me, objectively, that Shore hasn't injected enormous amount of detail into the music. Whether you like the music or not is another matter entirely than acknowledging the detail of his work. It is nothing if not specific. And maybe you have a thorough knowledge of the scores and still choose to belittle their effort or impact. Fine by me. Not everybody is impressed by the same traits in music.

[wanner251 17]

I shall give that book a read. Remember, I always say I'm trying to be convinced. Perhaps Doug Adams can convince me, because no one here can. And also remember, I do actually like the music.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

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.

As someone who has read these books more times than I can count, and had an abiding love for Tolkien long before Peter Jackson's films, I can tell you that you're pretty much flat out wrong on this. I actually think the score is so specific, and spot on that it could almost work as a soundtrack for the books as well.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion and free to think whatever you wish of Shore's masterpiece, but your comments are either so vague as so have no meaning read one way, or make no sense whatsoever read another. An frankly, the more highly regarded the work you're criticizing, the greater the burden on you to be specific as to what's wrong with it. I doubt anyone would question it if you came on here lobbing grenades at some throw-away Zimmer score. But if you're going to have a go at something that's pretty universally loved and respected, you're going to have to do better than this. Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but no one is going to respect it if you can't articulate why you feel like you do...particularly with regard to score like this. At minimum, you should provide more specifics...words like "brush strokes" and "hands off" mean nothing without context, and it's a lazy way to critique something. And you throw a few personal jabs in at Shore's talent to boot. If you're going to do stuff like that, you should be able to back it up. Otherwise, better to say nothing.

If you're going to criticize what is pretty universally regarded as one of the greatest achievements in motion picture scoring of all time, you really need to find a way to express yourself better...and practice a bit more on being specific and less general yourself before you criticize that in Shore.

PS. No one is trying to "convince" you of anything. It's you who are not convincing us.

[Uni 306]

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........

You could add Taiko drums to Pacabel's Canon, and it would sound like Zimmer. . . .

- Uni

[Quintus 5,399]

I shall give that book a read. Remember, I always say I'm trying to be convinced. Perhaps Doug Adams can convince me, because no one here can. And also remember, I do actually like the music.

Bullshit you do. You're full of shit and a troll in these LotR threads, so instead of pretending to be open to "convincing", why not just stop wasting everyone's time and post in some other thread about some other score. You're boring now.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Nasty Wannerses!

[wanner251 17]

First of all, I appreciate the edit of your own words because I read the original before you did so. Thank you for thinking twice about being a jerk. And honestly, if everything I have said makes no sense at all, then it should be very easily disproved by everyone here, WITH specifics, yet no one has provided any. Yes, I have agreed to read the Doug Adams book simply because I can find no one to truly enlighten me in a way that I'm looking for. I do love the music, but I want to have reason to love it more. Going on and on about how wonderful and sublime it is does not give me that reason, and is just as general as I have been accused of being. I say that Shore paints with large brushstrokes, you say he is specific and captures the intricacies. Neither of us provide specifics, though there clearly are plenty for both sides of this argument. I don't seek to downplay Shore's crowning achievement, I am merely looking for what I am not getting that everyone else seems to get.

This reminds me very much of when I first heard "In C" by Terry Riley. Everyone was raving about how brilliant it was, and even in understanding how it worked, I just thought it was silly that people were raving so much over so little.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

First of all, I appreciate the edit of your own words because I read the original before you did so. Thank you for thinking twice about being a jerk. And honestly, if everything I have said makes no sense at all, then it should be very easily disproved by everyone here, WITH specifics, yet no one has provided any. Yes, I have agreed to read the Doug Adams book simply because I can find no one to truly enlighten me in a way that I'm looking for. I do love the music, but I want to have reason to love it more. Going on and on about how wonderful and sublime it is does not give me that reason, and is just as general as I have been accused of being. I say that Shore paints with large brushstrokes, you say he is specific and captures the intricacies. Neither of us provide specifics, though there clearly are plenty for both sides of this argument. I don't seek to downplay Shore's crowning achievement, I am merely looking for what I am not getting that everyone else seems to get.

This reminds me very much of when I first heard "In C" by Terry Riley. Everyone was raving about how brilliant it was, and even in understanding how it worked, I just thought it was silly that people were raving so much over so little.

What you fail to understand is, you're the one coming on here criticizing something that's universally regarded as a masterpiece. The burden is on you to tell us why. No one here has to convince you of anything...nor are they trying to. You're the one offering up the criticism, you're the one who has the burden to back it up. This is not an argument.

And I'm not sure if you realize it, but claiming that you "love" the score as if it's some kind of pop song and then dismissing it is only undermining your argument, rather than adding credibility to it.

[Uni 306]

You might've saved time (and tribulation) by posting this first. It pretty well sums it up: others seem to perceive something you don't, you'd like to get what they're getting . . . so what exactly are they getting that you don't? This sounds more open-minded, and expresses not that you hate the music—which, of course, is something you've never said anyway—but that you want to learn more about it.

I've been trying to see your side, but I have to confess it's been a little difficult. You've been the one painting with a broad brush here, I think. You say the score isn't "specific" enough; yet when I review the thing in its entirety, taking note of its countless themes delineating each separate race, most of the locations, and many of the individual characters through their own motifs, and using considered variations and combinations of those motifs to illustrate how they all interact . . . I just can't say that I agree with your assessment. I'm not sure how to get it through to you what it is that you're missing. I mean, it's all right there, fercryinoutloud.

Two thoughts:

1) Read the liner notes for the full versions of the score. Each piece is explained in detail, referencing every iteration of even the smallest variation on a created theme whenever it comes up. Maybe this will give you some idea of the thought process that went into the "finer brush" elements of the score (which are innumerable).

2) Give us some clear idea of how you'd like Shore to have done it differently. Were you hoping for more detailed themes? Different uses of instrumentation? You tell us you wanted a "better representation of the world and the story." In what way? I mean, musically speaking, we can tell the difference between the Elves and the men of Rohan, and we get to see both interplaying with one another during the Helm's Deep sequence (which also brings the musical elements of the orcs, Aragorn, Eowyn, Gandalf, and others into play). How would you have approached this sort of thing differently? How does a composer get more specific about Rohan's identity, heritage, and purpose in the story?

You see our difficulty here? You make a general statement about Shore being too general, then tell us to come up with specifics to disprove your statement. But you haven't given us anything specific to be specific about. In a sense, you're the "challenger" here, so it's up to you to establish a thesis, support it with concrete evidence, then ask us to knock you off the hill.

- Uni

[Quintus 5,399]

First of all, I appreciate the edit of your own words because I read the original before you did so. Thank you for thinking twice about being a jerk. And honestly, if everything I have said makes no sense at all, then it should be very easily disproved by everyone here, WITH specifics, yet no one has provided any. Yes, I have agreed to read the Doug Adams book simply because I can find no one to truly enlighten me in a way that I'm looking for. I do love the music, but I want to have reason to love it more. Going on and on about how wonderful and sublime it is does not give me that reason, and is just as general as I have been accused of being. I say that Shore paints with large brushstrokes, you say he is specific and captures the intricacies. Neither of us provide specifics, though there clearly are plenty for both sides of this argument. I don't seek to downplay Shore's crowning achievement, I am merely looking for what I am not getting that everyone else seems to get.

This reminds me very much of when I first heard "In C" by Terry Riley. Everyone was raving about how brilliant it was, and even in understanding how it worked, I just thought it was silly that people were raving so much over so little.

Nah, you're just being contrary purely for something to do. Arguing for arguments sake.

[Uni 306]

What you fail to understand is, you're the one coming on here criticizing something that's universally regarded as a masterpiece.

Mmmm . . . on the other hand, I'd stop short of this sort of extreme on the opposite end of things (since you don't want to undermine your own argument). Shore's Rings cycle is hardly "universally regarded as a masterpiece." There are way too many people in the universe who would take exception to that categorization—several of whom frequent this board.

- Uni

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

"Feast on his flesh!"

[wanner251 17]

Uni, thank you for your ability to reason well... I will report back when I have had a more recent and clear look at the film and its score. It has been a while, which is why I don't have any specifics. Trust me, they do exist, and I will present them when I have them clearly laid out. You guys are really going to make me go and make notes and everything aren't you?OK, sounds good to me. It may be a little while though.

[Uni 306]

Take your time. This is the kind of discussion that's worth having.

- Uni

[KK 3,307]

Not that I have anything against them (because I really don't), but I've noticed that both Wanner's and Cantus Venti's posts have largely been redundant attempts at arguing simply for arguing's sake. It's like they can't stand seeing people enjoy these scores so much.

And did you say Shore fails to follow the story? I'm sorry Wanner, but that's an incredibly poor argument. If anything Shore'sall about story telling. His work captures the broad world and the personal intimate story. You wanted examples? What about the Shire theme? He captures the whole essence of the small hobbit's tale in the theme's various treatments.

And to say there's no detail in Shore's isn't very informed imho.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

What you fail to understand is, you're the one coming on here criticizing something that's universally regarded as a masterpiece.

Mmmm . . . on the other hand, I'd stop short of this sort of extreme on the opposite end of things (since you don't want to undermine your own argument). Shore's Rings cycle is hardly "universally regarded as a masterpiece." There are way too many people in the universe who would take exception to that categorization—several of whom frequent this board.

- Uni

Well, I'm not sure I'm making an argument...he's entitled to his opinion, whatever it is. I don't really care whether he likes the score or not. Arguing over taste in art is a pretty fruitless exercise. But if you are going to have a go at something like this, I do think you should be prepared to back it up cogently, and not casually attack Shore's talent without any specifics to support what you're saying. That's my problem with what he's doing.

Yeah, perhaps "universally" is too strong a word, I don't mean to imply everyone regards it as such. I'm sure there are people who don't regard the scores Star Wars, or ET, or Jaws as a "masterpiece" either. But I do think what LOTR shares with those scores is generally very high regard and wide spread acclaim, both among serious film score aficionados and casual fans. And in that case, I think if you're going to offer serious criticism of something like that, your criticism should be serious.

[Uni 306]

Perhaps "universally" is too strong a word, I don't mean to imply everyone regards it as such. I'm sure there are people who don't regard the scores Star Wars, or ET, or Jaws as a "masterpiece" either. But I do think what LOTR shares with those scores is generally very high regard and wide spread acclaim, both among serious film score aficionados and casual fans. And in that case, I think if you're going to offer serious criticism of something like that, your criticism should be serious.

Absolutely agree—and this is better stated. When you use a term like "universally regarded," you sound like you're saying, "Every single person in the WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD loves this thing . . . EXCEPT YOU!!!" And that makes you sound like you don't have a rational argument to offer on your side either.

- Uni

[KK 3,307]

It is largely considered one of the greatest scores of the Digital Age. Just because a few guys on a forum like trolling on it doesn't mean it isn't acclaimed.

And with art, nothing is loved by all.

[gkgyver 1,645]

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.

Don,t worry, he is apparently either deaf or preoccupied.Like ET's finale touches soooo many intricacies and is sooooo specific.

Shore incorporated so many details and crafted such fluent concert pieces that the details are superficially easy to lose in the entire picture. That doesn't mean that they're not there.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

In a head to head Oscar battle who would win, who would lose?

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

In a head to head Oscar battle who would win, who would lose?

What would the answer to that question tell you, even if it were answerable?

[Uni 306]

In a head to head Oscar battle who would win, who would lose?

. . . which is the cue for, "Let's transplant the discussion we're already having on two other threads into this one!"

The problem with the question, Joey, is that you're changing the object of the question, which changes the question itself. Lee's initial query concerned which of the two pieces we prefer. You're asking us to speculate which of the two the Academy would prefer. I'm not sure why that's even relevant to this conversation.

- Uni

[JoeinAR 1,949]

In a head to head Oscar battle who would win, who would lose?

. . . which is the cue for, "Let's transplant the discussion we're already having on two other threads into this one!"

The problem with the question, Joey, is that you're changing the object of the question, which changes the question itself. Lee's initial query concerned which of the two pieces we prefer. You're asking us to speculate which of the two the Academy would prefer. I'm not sure why that's even relevant to this conversation.

- Uni

because the thread was headed in that direction.

Joe, who believes E.T. would win, but suspects others would disgree. I cannot answer the specific question of this thread since I have no knowledge of this Grey Havens thing. I know how much I love Adventures on Earth. I also know how much I enjoyed ROTK as a film. I prefer one over the other but I enjoyed both. I can say nothing negative about that piece of music in particular.

[Uni 306]

because the thread was headed in that direction.

This makes absolutely zero sense. I saw no indication of anyone pulling the Oscars into the ring.

Joe, who believes E.T. would win, but suspects others would disgree. I cannot answer the specific question of this thread since I have no knowledge of this Grey Havens thing. I know how much I love Adventures on Earth. I also know how much I enjoyed ROTK as a film. I prefer one over the other but I enjoyed both. I can say nothing negative about that piece of music in particular.

This, on the other hand, makes loads of sense, and may well represent the wisest words I've ever read from you on this site, Joey.

- Uni

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Perhaps I see things differently than you since a comparison was underway between two Oscar winning scores. Take the leap of faith with me. It's not far and I wont let you fall.

Joe, sorry he opened this can of worms and the plague that resulted.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Perhaps I see things differently than you since a comparison was underway between two Oscar winning scores. Take the leap of faith with me. It's not far and I wont let you fall.

Only the penitent man will pass.

[crocodile 7,990]

Very poor choice of quote. Joey hates that film.

Karol

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Very poor choice of quote. Joey hates that film.

Karol

I'm not sure anyone with a Jaws 2 avatar has much of a right to complain about any film.