Jay 37,370 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Right, so you can put on the TTT CR if you want to hear that music. Why would you want that music in your AUJ experience instead of what Shore wrote for the scene? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bollemanneke 3,349 Posted August 24, 2016 Author Share Posted August 24, 2016 Because that's the music you hear in the film and that's the music I associate with that scene. I'm not saying Shore's original cue doesn't interest me, but that's not the first thing I want to hear. For casual fans who aren't familiar with such things, the OST is a complete disaster and doesn't represent the film score at all. It's primarily a work that accompanies the film. Oswin Pond 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,370 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 4 minutes ago, bollemanneke said: For casual fans who aren't familiar with such things, the OST is a complete disaster and doesn't represent the film score at all. I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous! SafeUnderHill and gkgyver 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Yes, it is too much assumed around here that everyone values the composer's intentions above all else. I of course do value a composer's intentions, and I'm not saying that directors mangling a composer's work is always or ever a good thing. But for a lot of people their love of a score comes from their love of a movie first, and it's the music from the movie they want to hear. Bilbo and Oswin Pond 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bollemanneke 3,349 Posted August 24, 2016 Author Share Posted August 24, 2016 Well, okay, you have the songs (the second one isn't identical to the film version, though), but other than that... Things start out badly from the start when that alternate Shire theme comes up. No eagle rescue, not all the MM statements, no Nazgul choir for Azog and Thorin's final confrontation etc. I just meant that a score interests me because it appeals to me in the film which has its own context, not because I happen to randomly think: Hmm, I'll give this a listen. Oswin Pond 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,370 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 You LIKED them using Nazgul choir for Thorin walking down the tree??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bollemanneke 3,349 Posted August 24, 2016 Author Share Posted August 24, 2016 Yes! I've only been examining the individual meaning of these themes for a few weeks now (don't know why that never occurred to me earlier). I'm guessing you didn't like that Nazgul music, but was that because you knew it didn't belong there or because you genuinely think that cue doesn't work in the scene, regardless of thematic issues? Oswin Pond 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 If forced to choose between an OST that represents a composer's intentions and an OST that's an accurate representation of the music heard in the movie, I would always choose the latter personally. EDIT Addition: This is not to say I don't care about a composer's intentions or that they couldn't be better, musically. Just that in terms of priorities, I prefer an OST to be an accurate product of the film it accompanies (this is if it has to be one or the other and if those two things are different) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,370 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 2 minutes ago, bollemanneke said: Yes! I've only been examining the individual meaning of these themes for a few weeks now (don't know why that never occurred to me earlier). I'm guessing you didn't like that Nazgul music, but was that because you knew it didn't belong there or because you genuinely think that cue doesn't work in the scene, regardless of thematic issues? Bollenmanneke. The Nazgul theme is a theme used in LOTR for.... The Nazgul. It is utterly ridiculous that Peter Jackson decided it made sense to use that theme in that scene in AUJ. The man clearly lost his mind at the end of post production of this film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bollemanneke 3,349 Posted August 24, 2016 Author Share Posted August 24, 2016 I agree that it doesn't make sense from a thematic point of view. Before I read the annotated scores, I only understood what the basic themes stood for (Shire/Hobbits, Isengard, Rohan, Gondor, Mordor/evil/Sauron etc.) I just meant that, if you don't assocaite this theme with the Nazgul, and the Nazgul only, it works. It only doesn't work when you're aware that the music is meant to score things that aren't in the film. Incidentally, is that Nazgul music a re-recording or existing LOTR material? Oswin Pond 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 3,694 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 I wouldn't say it's 'utterly ridiculous' if the only people who noticed were us. So it loses a bit of thematic integrity. Same thing with the nature theme used for Rohirrim business. Thematically it was wrong, but musically, it worked great. My primary wish has always been to hear what was in the film. If the composer's original intentions were different, then I respect that and they can make that available if they wish. Disco Stu and Bilbo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,370 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 3 minutes ago, bollemanneke said: Incidentally, is that Nazgul music a re-recording or existing LOTR material? It's a new recording; The lyrics are brand new, and not the traditional "Revelation of the Ringwraiths" lyrics. Incidentally, Shore composed a version of the theme with different lyrics before, for the Rarities version of the FOTR Prologue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 4 minutes ago, Richard Penna said: My primary wish has always been to hear what was in the film. If the composer's original intentions were different, then I respect that and they can make that available if they wish. So there are others like me around here! I thought I was an aberration (cue "You are an aberration, mate!" jokes here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 3,694 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Yep. It annoys me when I listen to an OST, to find that a key cue is different in some way. Surely the reason we buy scores is we liked what we heard in the film... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bollemanneke 3,349 Posted August 24, 2016 Author Share Posted August 24, 2016 So... Technically, one could argue that, because the lyrics changed, it might make some sort of sense to have that Nazgul music there. I'm pushing it, I know, but I just read that Shore used 'all sorts of Mordor material' in A Shortcut to Mushrooms, so you could argue that it works because Azog ultimately works for Mordor. Oswin Pond 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 3,694 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Shore is probably more frustrated with such a lack of 'musical logic' than we ever should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,370 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 6 minutes ago, bollemanneke said: So... Technically, one could argue that, because the lyrics changed, it might make some sort of sense to have that Nazgul music there. I'm pushing it, I know, but I just read that Shore used 'all sorts of Mordor material' in A Shortcut to Mushrooms, so you could argue that it works because Azog ultimately works for Mordor. Sauron's base of operations was at Dol Goldur during the time period of The Hobbit; He wouldn't take over Mordor until years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bollemanneke 3,349 Posted August 24, 2016 Author Share Posted August 24, 2016 Oh, okay. I need to brush up on my Tolkien geography, it seems. Oswin Pond 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkgyver 1,645 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 One learns new things every day. An hour less music on the OST would have been better, and there are people who consider the chopped up film edits great, and the OST a disaster. My god. Maybe the world did end and I haven't noticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrox 6,651 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 I had no problem with an inappropriate theme popping up out of context. Whatever - I read Doug's book and everything, and while it's nice to be able to analyze things in-depth, in-film the important thing is only that the music sets the scene appropriately. That said, that particular use bothered me in a different way. Thorin taking a "last stand" against Azog. Context-free of the theme's usage in previous movies, the music sounded evil/sinister. The shot it underscores is our hero limping into battle. If it were under a long shot of Azog, it would work just fine for me. As it is, it was confusing. Is this Thorin's fall to the "dark side?" This soon in the trilogy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bollemanneke 3,349 Posted August 24, 2016 Author Share Posted August 24, 2016 It sounded heroic to me but maybe that's because I couldn't care less if he died or not. He annoyed me more than anything else. Oswin Pond 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 4 minutes ago, gkgyver said: One learns new things every day. An hour less music on the OST would have been better, and there are people who consider the chopped up film edits great, and the OST a disaster. My god. Maybe the world did end and I haven't noticed. Or maybe, in the end, it's just a movie soundtrack and not worth getting worked up about when people have slightly differing opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrox 6,651 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Thorin didn't really bug me until movie 3 - the dragon sickness stuff just drags that movie down for me. Disco Stu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkgyver 1,645 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Just now, Disco Stu said: Or maybe, in the end, it's just a movie soundtrack and not worth getting worked up about when people have slightly differing opinions. There's opinion, there's being oblivious, and there's ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 3 minutes ago, mstrox said: Thorin didn't really bug me until movie 3 - the dragon sickness stuff just drags that movie down for me. Yeah if they had shifted the focus of the movie more towards Bilbo that might have worked better, but with Thorin being the central character of the movie mostly it was just tiresome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SafeUnderHill 205 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkgyver 1,645 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 I don't get the problem people have with an emphasis on Thorin. Thorin is no less of an interesting character, is no less actor, and you can't gloss over a battle like a book does. Bilbo and Thorin are about equal in emphasis, the third being Gandalf. No substantial amount of time in the movies ever passes without Bilbo, pretty much only for the Gandalf Side Quest. Thorin is the reason for the journey, it's not a mystery why he is treated as the second Most important character overall. And in BOFA, Bilbo doesn't have much of a story anyway. Barnald and Bilbo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SafeUnderHill 205 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 bollemanneke 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrox 6,651 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 1 hour ago, gkgyver said: I don't get the problem people have with an emphasis on Thorin. Thorin is no less of an interesting character, is no less actor, and you can't gloss over a battle like a book does. Bilbo and Thorin are about equal in emphasis, the third being Gandalf. No substantial amount of time in the movies ever passes without Bilbo, pretty much only for the Gandalf Side Quest. Thorin is the reason for the journey, it's not a mystery why he is treated as the second Most important character overall. And in BOFA, Bilbo doesn't have much of a story anyway. I don't mind the fact that the movies focused on Thorin, but every time he appeared in BOFA (until the dwarves' charge), he was instigating or zoning out or urging inaction. It's like if, in TTT, Jackson had spent an extra half hour with the zonked-out old-age-makeup Théoden. Just killed a lot of interest for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Yeah, the problem isn't so much that they made him an important character, rather that they made him a dull, boring and unlikable character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bollemanneke 3,349 Posted August 24, 2016 Author Share Posted August 24, 2016 Isn't the problem basically that all three films would have been much more interesting had they cut 30 minutes of footage? Or stuck to two films? There's too much Thorin, too much 'RUN!!!!!!' sequences, too many pointless characters (YOU ARE NAMELESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!), a certain female Elf etc. Oswin Pond 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,370 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Tauriel is great! Bilbo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkgyver 1,645 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 56 minutes ago, bollemanneke said: Isn't the problem basically that all three films would have been much more interesting had they cut 30 minutes of footage? Or stuck to two films? There's too much Thorin, too much 'RUN!!!!!!' sequences, too many pointless characters (YOU ARE NAMELESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!), a certain female Elf etc. So, the expelling of Sauron by Galadriel, one of the very few things in BOFA that is actually close to Tolkien and works well, is pointless to you? Bilbo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bollemanneke 3,349 Posted August 24, 2016 Author Share Posted August 24, 2016 The action isn't pointless. The poetic language accompanying it is quite unnecessary. As for Tauriel, to each his own. Oswin Pond 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkgyver 1,645 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Because poetic language didn't work for LotR? The very best moments and scenes in both LotR and Hobbit are poetic in tone and language. There is so much poetry and beautiful language in Tolkien that one would have to be an idiot to dismiss it. The Hobbit films are annoying when they attempt contemporary humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bollemanneke 3,349 Posted August 24, 2016 Author Share Posted August 24, 2016 I beg to differ. I appreciate beautiful language, but I find Tolkien, as a writer, incredibly stilted, archaic and trying and failing to like be Shakespeare. His dialogue is terrilbe at times and sounds artificial, not to mention his metaphores (women's voices sounding like waterfalls, I ask you...), and let's not forget how everything is 'fair'. But that's just my opinion. I had to stop reading FOTR because the language was so off-putting. For example: Take Elrond's line: you shall be the Fellowship of the Ring. 1. Does it matter what they'll be? As long as that Ring gets destroyed, it's all good, isn't it? Also, why so stately? Aren't they trying to prevent a crisis? 2. Does the line contribute anything to the story? No. Oswin Pond 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick1Ø66 4,718 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Mate, you are so missing the point. Bofur01 and Bilbo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bollemanneke 3,349 Posted August 24, 2016 Author Share Posted August 24, 2016 That's entirely possible. All I know is that I tried to read them twice, and I won't try again. Oswin Pond 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick1Ø66 4,718 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Tolkien's language can be challenging. But to a large extent it's the language that those books are about. And of course Tolkien is "failing to be like Shakespeare". He's not even trying to be like Shakespeare, so I'm not quite sure where you're getting that from. Again, if you find the language off putting, fair enough. LOTR as literature is certainly not everyone's cup of tea. Bilbo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkgyver 1,645 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 If you don't really know what Tolkien is about and don't like the language, not sure what you want with the films because despite what most people say, they are not just epic fantasy films. Actually, you don't have to really know Tolkien to appreciate it, a basic sense for aesthetics would be enough. But I don't think that's realistic to expect, since Bolle finds the hacked up film score more pleasing than the original soundtrack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 In many ways the prose is whats most attractive about the book. Bilbo and Bofur01 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 6 hours ago, bollemanneke said: I beg to differ. I appreciate beautiful language, but I find Tolkien, as a writer, incredibly stilted, archaic and trying and failing to like be Shakespeare. His dialogue is terrilbe at times and sounds artificial, not to mention his metaphores (women's voices sounding like waterfalls, I ask you...), and let's not forget how everything is 'fair'. But that's just my opinion. I had to stop reading FOTR because the language was so off-putting. For example: Take Elrond's line: you shall be the Fellowship of the Ring. 1. Does it matter what they'll be? As long as that Ring gets destroyed, it's all good, isn't it? Also, why so stately? Aren't they trying to prevent a crisis? 2. Does the line contribute anything to the story? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Incanus 5,715 Posted August 25, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted August 25, 2016 12 hours ago, Nick66 said: Tolkien's language can be challenging. But to a large extent it's the language that those books are about. And of course Tolkien is "failing to be like Shakespeare". He's not even trying to be like Shakespeare, so I'm not quite sure where you're getting that from. Again, if you find the language off putting, fair enough. LOTR as literature is certainly not everyone's cup of tea. Tolkien's stories are born of languages, they are steeped in languages both real and imagined. Certainly they might not be everyone's cup of tea but his writings are very much of the language and culture of far older times. The author's style is also not of one note but he shows the whole spectrum of English through the story from the rustic Hobbits to the high style reached in scenes like the siege of Minas Tirith. Tolkien's aesthetics, literary style and diction touch upon Old English, Old Icelandic and the Ancients in its style and form, all filtered through his philologist mind. Undoubtedly it is archaic and often his characters speak in style removed from what one might consider "normal" dialogue as the author is dealing with mythic archetypes, creating in a sense an original mythology on the foundation of what he knows best, the languages and cultures of the past. Few characters like Frodo,Sam and Gollum become the "everyman" characters who are perhaps the most "normal" or down to earth of the cast of characters or we get to see how Tolkien delves deeper into their psychologies and their joys and sorrows are entirely relatable but Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond and many others are indeed like the mythical archetypes, a counsellor wizard, a wise and good king, a legendary loremaster and a healer, who are treated almost in the fashion of Beowulf, Norse sagas or Greek or Roman myths and legends. Which of course doesn't lessen their appeal as relatable characters, just like it wouldn't in the sources of inspiration for Tolkien I just cited. They just seem to be on a slightly different literary plane than normal humans or hobbits. Much of the literary imagery, turns of phrase, kennings and metaphors in Tolkien's language has its origin in the languages he studied and loved and the stories and literature tied to them. The more one reads something like Norse sagas, Eddaic poems or Beowulf, Greek myths or poetry or even Finnish Kalevala, the more one can see his deep understanding and affinity for them and the more one can appreciate the skill with which he woven these aspects into his work and created his own aesthetic with them both in the English language and in his own invented ones, Quenya and Sindarin. Again this is just my little way of voicing my appreciation for Tolkien's superb language, prose and poetry, which resonates very deeply with me personally. Ahem, and now back to the topic at hand... Jay, Nick1Ø66 and KK 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 In the end, it's just boring words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick1Ø66 4,718 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 2 hours ago, Incanus said: Tolkien's stories are born of languages, they are steeped in languages both real and imagined. Again this is just my little way of voicing my appreciation for Tolkien's superb language, prose and poetry, which resonates very deeply with me personally. Yes, I know all this and agree with you. I've probably read Lord of the Rings alone dozens of time and adore Tolkien's language. Which is why I said "it's the language" that Tolkien's books are about. He was, after all, a philologist. You just said it more eloquently and, um, verbosely than I did. Incanus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incanus 5,715 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 25 minutes ago, Nick66 said: Yes, I know all this and agree with you. I've probably read Lord of the Rings alone dozens of time and adore Tolkien's language. Which is why I said "it's the language" that Tolkien's books are about. He was, after all, a philologist. You just said it more eloquently and, um, verbosely than I did. I am very much in agreement with your thoughts and thought to chime in on the subject. And yes I am verbose. It's my speciality. I guess it is the Ent in me. Nick1Ø66 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bollemanneke 3,349 Posted August 25, 2016 Author Share Posted August 25, 2016 In answer to a previous question: why do I like the films and not the books? That's easy to answer. - Because the films make no effort to pretend as though they're about real events. That might sound odd, but I just hate things like 'as you and I both know, dragons...' I don't know that, because dragons do not exist. I don't read to be lectured about a world that doesn't exist. - And also because most of the time, the films do not attempt to force characters to utter phrases not a sensible being would utter if any of these situations had really taken place. Consider: Gandalf tells Frodo about the history of the ring, and Frodo, who is supposed to be 30 (or 40?) goes 'How terrifying!' How many of you can imagine yourselves sitting at a table with an adult and genuinely exclaiming 'How terrifying?' Oh, and of course dear Tom Bombadil. Oswin Pond 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bollemanneke 3,349 Posted August 25, 2016 Author Share Posted August 25, 2016 Yes, I do, because it's simply jarring and childish. Oswin Pond 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, bollemanneke said: In answer to a previous question: why do I like the films and not the books? That's easy to answer. - Because the films make no effort to pretend as though they're about real events. It's funny you should say that, as PJ said that's exactly the approach they took: they tried to make the movies look real, to make them feel like what was happening onscreen really happened, a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now