Jump to content

Hans Zimmer's Man Of Steel


Jay

Recommended Posts

Well that was just pure Zimmer. Make of that what you will.

I hope he will add more of the vaunted pedal steel guitars into this music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, the boredom or the imaginary highlights?

Well, you said "in general boring with a highlight here and there".

That pretty much sums up Hans Zimmer's post 2000 output for me.

Knowing GK, probably the latter. Not that I entirely disagree with him... ;)

You know me well ;)

But the trailer does sound boring. Even if it's truncated. If this is part of the main theme, I'm not that interested in the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zimmer used to write themes that sounded like themes. It's just modern Zimmer that can't seem to write much of a melody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zimmer used to write themes that sounded like themes. It's just modern Zimmer that can't seem to write much of a melody.

He actually doesn't want to do melodies anymore as I recall. He wants to do "soundscapes" and no "bullshit heroic" themes.

Who wants Superman to go with some heroic shades anyway? That distracts from the deep troubles of Clark Kent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The brass progression in the trailer sounds like that recurring 3-chord ascending motif in the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels. It sounds almost exactly like it. Copy and pasting again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: Hans and I are friends (well, friendly), and we have both said many nice things about the other's work, so there'll be no bashing here, but he did say something to me once that I thought was interesting. He said he felt that today's movies "reject" themes; something about the nature of the way they're conceived and cut. The context of the discussion was my sort of "John Williams" approach to scoring, structurally/thematically, which he felt was, "not in vogue."

It was one of our earlier meetings, so I didn't argue the point, but I was tempted to say that I didn't really agree we have a whole host of young composers with the decades-of-training long-form chops to even be able to pull off that sort of approach, which makes the whole thing a self-selecting set. That is, they do not want what they cannot get. But there are some of us who were trained old-school, yet fully embrace and appreciate modern sounds and palettes, and believe that the structural essence of the golden era of film scoring needn't have been thrown out with the bathwater. Still, with 90% of work passing through Remote Control productions one way or another, we are unquestionably in the throes of an era unto itself. Hans is a nice guy; he didn't ask to be the template for every other film's score, he's absolutely clear about his priorities, and they're apparent in the work.

I guess all of this is to say that the current Alpha Dog in filmscoring isn't inclined towards thematic, traditionally-developed film music on a lot of levels and for many reasons, which sort of guarantees that those of us heavily influenced by the original Williams score are going to be really, really unhappy. But in the end, there's no question that the entire Williams approach has been consciously discarded, so you can't really compare the two. This Superman has little in common with the Donner film in any case, at its core.

_Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, that movies 'reject themes' does not automatically mean they must be objected to Zimmer pop/rock stylings. I keep on saying how the biggest problem of RCP & Co. is the underscore: here the lack of musical form is most apparent and appalling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, there is no musical distinction between "underscore" and "score".. they're interchangeable terms, though I understand there is some confusion - even amongst younger composers - about this, as though "underscore" applies to music in some sort of subordinate role than at other times. But when he was talking about the rejection of themes, he was also talking about the rejection of thematically-developed material in the traditional sense, as well. So whether you're using a pop/rock/sound-design palette or a traditional orchestral palette, the structure we're fond of (and I feel is most effective) is what's actually different between today's scores and yesterday's. Coming up, we were symphonically-trained. That's simply not the case anymore.

_Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but for me in film music the most important aspect is the ability to musically tell a story, with whatever musical devices there may be. What is the most disheartening trend with those rock/pop amalgams is that they work at creating recognizable tunes (however mundane) but as soon as the proper underscore (read: longer, usually developed pieces going with the film's story) comes in, they just sound stitched together without much of a coherent flow.

I'm not the biggest fan of the Williams version of SUPERMAN (save the highlights in the first half) so i don't blindly yearn for a repeat of that, but i don't see why a good modern composer shoudn't be able to develop a potent musical structure in a more modern style (which of course would be buried by the sfx track, no doubt).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's the symphonic structure, and the answer to your question is because they're not trained that way any longer, and it's not valued. I've been teaching masterclasses to young composers and, by and large, they've never considered the necessity or superiority of a 90-minute development. They're used to (as is custom now) a score consisting of individual cues, as you point out, strung together. It's a series of sketches; not a score. Each cue might be perfectly appropriate for its scene, but together they do not tell a cohesive story, as they were once charged to. Just be glad the scripts themselves haven't given up the 3-act structure and devolved into 90 minutes of "cool moments." Yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They haven't? :mrgreen:

I hear what you are saying and i see there is no practical necessity for better written filmscores (at least not by a pragmatic producer). What i must say is that stuff like IRON MAN or CLASH OF THE TITANS (or SHERLOCK HOLMES, or TRANSFORMERS etc.) wasn't the reason i became a fan of this artform once and i find it incredibly sad to see it go to waste just because they now can fill 240 sound effect tracks with music being number 241.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Hans] said he felt that today's movies "reject" themes; something about the nature of the way they're conceived and cut. The context of the discussion was my sort of "John Williams" approach to scoring, structurally/thematically, which he felt was, "not in vogue."

He's right.

However, the current state of movie soundtracks isn't quite as cut and dry as you and pub went on to summarise afterwards. Buried amongst the "pop/rock" approach which has arguably become the trendy standard in modern blockbuster scoring, there are still rare deviations and successful mashups poking their heads up above the crowd - melody IS still embraced and exercised by a few in the industry; satisfying harmony can still send shivers alongside its electric guitar accompaniment. For me a score like Kick-Ass is testament to that. That fine soundtrack managed, with panache imo, a very successful marriage of old and new, the end result being an ultra contemporary musical bedding which accomplished cohesive, rousing storytelling whilst still retaining the all important cool factor.

Melody is still relevant in scoring, and audiences still want it.

Zimmer is still right in the here and now, but surely he can't deny his own aesthetic choices and his massive success with them isn't almost entirely responsible for the the current trend, and shift away from the traditional template. He needs to take some responsibility, since more than anyone he has shaped the en vogue sound we hear in every other blockbuster today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting points.

I guess what Hans said is also tied to the preferences of today's film directors and producers, who are probably more uncomfortable than ever to the classic symphonic/narrative approach in their own movies. Aside from commercial reasons (which are always No.1 priority in Hollywood), there's a tendency to reject an approach like that because it just sounds "old fashioned". Indeed, if you think about it, some of the most critically-acclaimed movies of the last 10-15 years are the one who got "unobtrusive" film scores, or sometimes no score at all (like Coen Bros.' No Country for Old Men). On the other side we also have a guy like Quentin Tarantino, who stuff his own movies with a highly idiosyncratic selection of pieces that include snippets from exotic film scores--and general audience seems to go nut for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...) to the preferences of today's film directors and producers, who are probably more uncomfortable than ever to the classic symphonic/narrative approach in their own movies. (...)

Is it really a musical preference or more like, musical illiteracy?

I was reading the liner notes of Home Alone which explained how the producers asked for a Prokofiev-like score, or about the producer of Superman suggesting a quasi Straussian Zarathustra opening of the film.

I am not sure that today's -sometimes young- producers or film directors listen to such music or even know who Prokofiev and Strauss is.

They listen to more modern things, so that's the style of film music they promote in their films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because probably the general audience doesn't really have an aversion to big musical displays.

Sorry if I sound rude, but general audience is overall musically ignorant, save for last month's Billboard chart (or YouTube's most viewed). It's only a matter of what sounds "hip" or "cool".

(...) to the preferences of today's film directors and producers, who are probably more uncomfortable than ever to the classic symphonic/narrative approach in their own movies. (...)

Is it really a musical preference or more like, musical illiteracy?

I was reading the liner notes of Home Alone which explained how the producers asked for a Prokofiev-like score, or about the producer of Superman suggesting a quasi Straussian Zarathustra opening of the film.

I am not sure that today's -sometimes young- producers or film directors listen to such music or even know who Prokofiev and Strauss is.

They listen to more modern things, so that's the style of film music they promote in their films.

What I said above. It's a mix of both. Sadly, there are people who perceive anything classical-sounding as something too heady or even reactionary. Symphonic music is mainly associated with old people (be them the composers dead centuries ago or rich ladies with white hair who goes to concert halls), something that doesn't "speak of our times". So there's the tendency to wipe out classical stuff because is just perceived as "outdated".

What I find funny is that in the last 50 years the masses have been exposed to orchestral sounds more than they realize mainly thanks to film music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other side we also have a guy like Quentin Tarantino, who stuff his own movies with a highly idiosyncratic selection of pieces that include snippets from exotic film scores--and general audience seems to go nut for that.

Yes they do, knowingly. They are in on the joke. That is the exact opposite of what true scoring craft is, what it aims to accomplish. Great film score is never consciously showy.

The best scores make the audience "go nuts" without them even knowing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You notice the music only when it comes to the foreground and makes a grand statement. Most people are truly unaware about the subtleties and they don't realize how much an important role music plays even when you seem to "not hear it". Also, they're so accustomed to see movies with some music playing in the background that it's now perceived as part of the regular sound fabric (it's also how people today mostly listen to music in itself, i.e. background accompaniment to ordinary everyday life activities).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've starting to question even the meaning of music in movies.

I think that if I made a film, the defult form would be "no music", and I'd edit the whole film that way, and then go back to the few scenes that don't work and place music there. For some reason, that feels to me the logical approach. Rather than filling the film with purposely unnoticeable music or even burying it under sound effects (???)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of films certainly are better off without music at all, but i bemoan the total death of gripping scores for big summer blockbusters which always have "big" scores attached to them...or at least long ones. Last year, two lukewarm entries were SNOW WHITE and PROMETHEUS...i can't remember anything else. Probably because i turned it off after 2 minutes for severe migraine attacks.

It doesn't help that more solid scores like JOHN CARTER are attached to total failures while something like OBLIVION thrives on a dire rip-off of INCEPTION & Co. and becomes a big success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to be disappointed these days. If I don't like the film I don't care if the score is terrible, but scores are part of my enjoyment of films (it's a part of the film after all) and a score I don't like hurts my enjoyment of films I do like and I like them less for it.

I could potentially like Interstellar for example, but at this point, will Mr Room churn out some boring music that will make the film worse? It might/will happen and I'm very annoyed about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...)but scores are part of my enjoyment of films (it's a part of the film after all) and a score I don't like hurts my enjoyment of films I do like and I like them less for it.

I completely agree!

And especially it hurts if you're a musician/composer etc.

I mean, how could eg. a photographer enjoy a nonetheless good film, that has bad photography?

Also, it's a pity seeing that some bad films (or B-movies) of the past have great film scores (i'm mostly talking about sci-fi/adventure/fantasy), but films of the present that are advertised as the blockbusters of the year and are supposed to be A-list movies, have incompetent scores.

That shows, that something is not right in the world of film music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's no longer fun to bash Han Zimmer these days, especially when there is a much better, more appropriate target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's no longer fun to bash Han Zimmer these days, especially when there is a much better, more appropriate target.

Zimmer is scoring Superman, what do you mean there are more appropiate targets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess all of this is to say that the current Alpha Dog in filmscoring isn't inclined towards thematic, traditionally-developed film music

But John Williams never left the thematic, traditionally developed film music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess all of this is to say that the current Alpha Dog in filmscoring isn't inclined towards thematic, traditionally-developed film music

But John Williams never left the thematic, traditionally developed film music.

:) Yes, it's the harsh truth that our man ain't the big dog anymore. He's just still the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giacchino? I don't think he's nearly as important or big a deal as Zimmer or Horner, so bashing him is pretty unsatisfying.

yes, he's the appropriate target. And some get so pissed off about it too. Especially when criticizing ST 2009. It's much more fun.

Of course others still enjoy going after Horner, but in doing so they themselves become the very thing they criticize about Horner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giacchino? I don't think he's nearly as important or big a deal as Zimmer or Horner, so bashing him is pretty unsatisfying.

yes, he's the appropriate target. And some get so pissed off about it too. Especially when criticizing ST 2009. It's much more fun.

Of course others still enjoy going after Horner, but in doing so they themselves become the very thing they criticize about Horner.

Is there anything wrong with GIacchino's Star Trek? I liked the score a lot!

I thought it was a worthy continuation of the earlier scores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there anything wrong with GIacchino's Star Trek?

I like the score, from what I gather, people find that:

Its not as deep as the other scores, its dryly recorded, and to some "bland", it goes in one ear and out the other, you have no recollection of listening to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with Giacchino's Trek score, it's worthy of being included with rest of them.

There's nothing wrong with Giacchino as composer either, he's an excellent composer with his own voice and would have been an excellent choice to score the next Superman film.

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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.