92nd Academy Awards (2020 ceremony for 2019 films)

[publicist 4,643]

No, it's not just aesthetic. That's ignoring, on a film music board, no less, that music still has to follow musical rules. But it's an argument i've come to accept, since even on film MUSIC boards, there's just no getting around the fact that first and foremost, there are film fans, and somewhere down the road is the music part. Which i still refuse to bow to, because i give a shit about most films and can't be arsed looking for precious gifts in that morass of sound.

[Edmilson 7,367]

Speaking for myself, these days I'm finding more enjoyment by listening to film music (and gaming) than watching movies. I haven't even seen all of the Oscar flicks, neither the ceremony itself (gave up midway and went playing some PS4 instead, a better use of my limited free time), but listening to (good) music still remains as good as it always have been.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,488]

2 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

Supposedly Johannsson's BR 2049 didn't sound anything like Vangelis and I think I would have preferred that.

Has any of his rejected score leaked?

[A24 4,323]

11 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Has any of his rejected score leaked?

 

No idea. 

[Arpy 4,145]

7 hours ago, publicist said:

Knockout argument. read above, according to *WHOM*? 

So you believe film scores were made to function on an extra intertextual level, separate from the film, and not solely to support the visual narrative with a musical one?

Yes, scores can take on a life outside of their original functionality, however that wouldn't be the primary function now would it.

 

According to whom? According to the hundreds of films and filmmakers in the last eighty years who've used film scores to convey emotion, intent, themes etc. 

7 hours ago, publicist said:

Knockout argument. read above, according to *WHOM*? 

So you believe film scores were made to function on an extra intertextual level, separate from the film, and not solely to support the visual narrative with a musical one?

Yes, scores can take on a life outside of their original functionality, however that wouldn't be the primary function now would it.

 

According to whom? According to the hundreds of films and filmmakers in the last eighty years who've used film scores to convey emotion, intent, themes etc. 

7 hours ago, publicist said:

Knockout argument. read above, according to *WHOM*? 

So you believe film scores were made to function on an extra intertextual level, separate from the film, and not solely to support the visual narrative with a musical one?

Yes, scores can take on a life outside of their original functionality, however that wouldn't be the primary function now would it.

 

According to whom? According to the hundreds of films and filmmakers in the last eighty years who've used film scores to convey emotion, intent, themes etc. 

7 hours ago, publicist said:

Knockout argument. read above, according to *WHOM*? 

So you believe film scores were made to function on an extra intertextual level, separate from the film, and not solely to support the visual narrative with a musical one?

Yes, scores can take on a life outside of their original functionality, however that wouldn't be the primary function now would it.

 

According to whom? According to the hundreds of films and filmmakers in the last eighty years who've used film scores to convey emotion, intent, themes etc. 

[Fabulin 3,506]

30 minutes ago, Arpy said:

So you believe film scores were made to function on an extra intertextual level, separate from the film, and not solely to support the visual narrative with a musical one?

Yes, scores can take on a life outside of their original functionality, however that wouldn't be the primary function now would it.

 

According to whom? According to the hundreds of films and filmmakers in the last eighty years who've used film scores to convey emotion, intent, themes etc. 

So you believe film scores were made to function on an extra intertextual level, separate from the film, and not solely to support the visual narrative with a musical one?

Yes, scores can take on a life outside of their original functionality, however that wouldn't be the primary function now would it.

 

According to whom? According to the hundreds of films and filmmakers in the last eighty years who've used film scores to convey emotion, intent, themes etc. 

So you believe film scores were made to function on an extra intertextual level, separate from the film, and not solely to support the visual narrative with a musical one?

Yes, scores can take on a life outside of their original functionality, however that wouldn't be the primary function now would it.

 

According to whom? According to the hundreds of films and filmmakers in the last eighty years who've used film scores to convey emotion, intent, themes etc. 

So you believe film scores were made to function on an extra intertextual level, separate from the film, and not solely to support the visual narrative with a musical one?

Yes, scores can take on a life outside of their original functionality, however that wouldn't be the primary function now would it.

 

According to whom? According to the hundreds of films and filmmakers in the last eighty years who've used film scores to convey emotion, intent, themes etc. 

What is this? Ostinato speech?

[publicist 4,643]

He thinks he's made an important point. With the broadest Ford Thaxton arguments ca. rec.music.movies, because as usually he didn't get the finer point.

 

But be it as it may be, let's rest assured that all these movie lovers some day will get their own space called anonymoussounddesignfan.net.com and there they can debate forever the wonderful contribution of static cello organ points, wafting synth carpets and occasional plings. 

[Richard Penna 3,664]

Agh... has anyone uploaded the score medley anywhere that doesn't have geographical restrictions? My usual YouTube ripper doesn't work.

 

How unbelievably fucking backwards are we when they can't allow international viewers to watch it?

 

Edit - n/m - I've found a way to watch it.

 

I agree with those who wonder why they didn't just get Noone to conduct the whole thing.

[Jay 37,249]

I thought it was funny that the medley ended with the album-only ending of Speeder Chase that wasn't in the film and was likely written just for the OST

[KK 3,307]

49 minutes ago, publicist said:

He thinks he's made an important point. With the broadest Ford Thaxton arguments ca. rec.music.movies, because as usually he didn't get the finer point.

 

But be it as it may be, let's rest assured that all these movie lovers some day will get their own space called anonymoussounddesignfan.net.com and there they can debate forever the wonderful contribution of static cello organ points, wafting synth carpets and occasional plings. 

 

That rhetoric is a little close-minded isn't it? You do realize pub, that this kind of thing existed in music circles long before it snuck into film, right? None of these ideas were originated in service of just creating "background music" for movies. The sounds of Johannsson, Richter, Eno, etc etc all existed and evolved in their own independent fraternities before they got discovered by some Hollywood schmuck who wanted to appropriate those qualities in service of their films. Just like every other major blockbuster score has done over the last century.

 

Yes, there are "rules" in music. But these rules are bent, shifted and made anew, as the 20th century has taught us again and again. Everything you're hearing, is more or less a derivation of Cage-ian thinking and like anyway. Different forms, rules and aesthetics can co-exist under the vast umbrella of music. And it's film music, for pete's sake. The only melting pot where Tchaikovsky and pop don't cancel each other out, despite being two different aesthetics with different rules. So long as its all done with rigour and discipline.

 

But more pertinent to your point, not everyone is just noodling around and faking it to support a film (although some, or many, definitely are). Some artists who play with static cello organ points and synth carpets actually work within a very clear system of musical "rules". Something, that is perhaps more obvious when you explore their non-film works, but true nonetheless. The same could probably be told to Williams' more academic critics as well...

[Cerebral Cortex 3,357]

18 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

I like a lot of hip hop, but Eminem I can’t stand.  That song included.  I had some real Scorsese energy sitting through it.

 

It's amusing that now we can say with 100% certainty that John Williams has seen Eminem perform live. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,008]

4 minutes ago, Cerebral Cortex said:

 

It's amusing that now we can say with 100% certainty that John Williams has seen Eminem perform live. 

 

Are we sure he wasn't drowsing?

[publicist 4,643]

9 minutes ago, KK said:

That rhetoric is a little close-minded isn't it? You do realize pub, that this kind of thing existed in music circles long before it snuck into film, right? None of these ideas were originated in service of just creating "background music" for movies. The sounds of Johannsson, Richter, Eno, etc etc all existed and evolved in their own independent fraternities before they got discovered by some Hollywood schmuck who wanted to appropriate those qualities in service of their films. Just like every other major blockbuster score has done over the last century.

 

Yes, there are "rules" in music. But these rules are bent, shifted and made anew, as the 20th century has taught us again and again. Everything you're hearing, is more or less a derivation of Cage-ian thinking and like anyway. Different forms, rules and aesthetics can co-exist under the vast umbrella of music. And it's film music, for pete's sake. The only melting pot where Tchaikovsky and pop don't cancel each other out, despite being two different aesthetics with different rules. So long as its all done with rigour and discipline.

 

But more pertinent to your point, not everyone is just noodling around and faking it to support a film (although some, or many, definitely are). Some artists who play with static cello organ points and synth carpets actually work within a very clear system of musical "rules". Something, that is perhaps more obvious when you explore their non-film works, but true nonetheless. The same could probably be told to Williams' more academic critics as well...

 

You confuse concept albums of vastly different approaches, aims and goals with the rather narrow translation of a few of those's characteristics into mostly turgid applications that happen to be modern film *music* (it's really a crutch to call it that). There's tons of status quo film music á la Powell that's not necessarily better, and certainly not more original in application, but at least it's music and not Joker-style surface gloss that's sold to the not-so-brights as cutting-edge. 

 

I also think you and many others wouldn't be arsed to join a music board for that kind of stuff, but that's beside the point. More to the point is the simple fact that i don't believe for a minute that you ever looked for 'a very clear system of musical rules' in Reznor/Ross, Johanssen or any of the other gents and gals you cited. This stuff just happens to be in movies you inevitably saw and because it's a trend since ca. 1995 to become all static and abstract, you feel the urge to defend it more than it needs to be defended. 

 

I quite like, i. e. Gone Girl and some others, but please, no one needs to tell me the vast outlands of static background stuff that hardly moves is an artistic necessity we need in 10,000 movies and tv shows. It's guys copying other guys, it's Philips copying Fincher and so forth. 

 

Again, i think i always had an open ear for new trends and, when to my ears it succeeded (the populist examples may be Inception or Tron:Legacy, though neither of these was overly static), i applauded it, but Joker, Sicario and all those others i had to misfortune to endure in the last 10-15 years added not much content worth keeping to this big umbrella you spoke of. 

[Arpy 4,145]

No, pub, no one's arguing film music can't be more than the application of music to film, but that is where this artform evolved from. 

You can't have it both ways and claim film music is one thing and another when it doesn't appeal to you. 

1 hour ago, publicist said:

 

 

I also think you and many others wouldn't be arsed to join a music board for that kind of stuff, but that's beside the point. More to the point is the simple fact that i don't believe for a minute that you ever looked for 'a very clear system of musical rules' in Reznor/Ross, Johanssen or any of the other gents and gals you cited. This stuff just happens to be in movies you inevitably saw and because it's a trend since ca. 1995 to become all static and abstract, you feel the urge to defend it more than it needs to be defended. 

 

 

Perhaps people find something of value in the scores you'll readily dismiss as not appealing to your sensibilities. 

 

[Bayesian 1,353]

6 hours ago, KK said:

 

Of course there's wallpaper! It's film music!

 

There's just as much wallpaper in something like Sicario/Arrival as there is in Desplat's Little Women (or any Desplat score, really)

I’m going to indulge my inner Principal Skinner in saying that all the ridiculous Desplat-bashing I’ve been seeing on this forum had better come to a right pretty end right pretty quick.

[KK 3,307]

There's obviously some truth in what you say pub. And you certainly won't find me defending the muddled soup that is Joker or much of Reznor/Ross, but I think we'll just have to disagree on your parameters for what is and isn't music.

[Edmilson 7,367]

All I know is that Gervais should've hosted the Oscars. It would've been funny to watch him attacking Hollywood's hypocrisy right on their biggest party:

 

 

 

 

[Arpy 4,145]

Did you catch JW here in Eminem's tweet?

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

Joaquin should have showed up wearing a tuxedo embroidered with the names of cows not nominated for best director.

[Edmilson 7,367]

Another reason why last sunday's ceremony was woeful: the pathetic jab at VFX artists that work more, with more pressure and are paid way less than the celebrities onstage, just because Cats is now an internet meme.

 

The Oscars’ Shade On VFX Artists Isn’t Cool
Actors in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

https://birthmoviesdeath.com/2020/02/11/the-oscars-shade-on-vfx-artists-isnt-cool

[TSMefford 1,509]

3 hours ago, Edmilson said:

Another reason why last sunday's ceremony was woeful: the pathetic jab at VFX artists that work more, with more pressure and are paid way less than the celebrities onstage, just because Cats is now an internet meme.

 

The Oscars’ Shade On VFX Artists Isn’t Cool
Actors in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

https://birthmoviesdeath.com/2020/02/11/the-oscars-shade-on-vfx-artists-isnt-cool

 

Precisely. Look here's the deal. The best VFX in the whole god damn world wouldn't save that movie. Even if they pushed the release back a full year just to purely work on the VFX and make them perfect...it wouldn't have saved the damn movie. It is so ironic that they rushed the post schedule to qualify for the Oscars and didn't get a single nomination. 

 

Honestly, the occasionally shoddy and clearly rushed and not quite finished VFX made the movie more enjoyable.

 

That being said, given the time frame the VFX artists had AND the utter crap footage they were given, the post-VFX did a pretty damn amazing job all things considered. I mean most of the actors didn't even have proper mo-cap on and when they did, apparently the data was garbage anyway. The artists somehow still made it look close to decent. I mean on a technical level it's pretty impressive the effects in that movie are as good as they are with how little effort the production side seemed to put in for the VFX. Just goes to show how far we've come in that industry. I look forward to any breakdowns that might get released for this movie and I'm really curious if anything get's included on the Blu-Ray about the VFX. I want to know so much about the production of this film.

 

As I said though, even if the movie was fully polished and free of errors, the problems all stem from utterly bizarre writing and directing choices. The movie was doomed before the FX artists got a single shot to work on.

 

Truth is the production people (actors included) need someone to blame, and it's always easy to blame the VFX guys. 

 

That poor VFX house got utterly screwed dealing with this piece of crap AND redesigning Sonic. They're one of the last people that should be blamed for these movies failing.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Cats needed the cats to look like actual damn cats, not these grotesque human/feline hybrids.

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

VFX deserve blame. The cats were extremely unsettling. I did not think the trailer was bad but when you watch a 2 hour movie with cats looking like that it is extraordinarily creepy.

[Edmilson 7,367]

Even if the CGI was the movie's biggest problem, Corden and Wilson also delivered subpar acting, as the article I posted states. And they received way more for their work than the VFX artists, who worked under stressing conditions and did their best to deliver Hooper's horrid vision. Also, one of the studios that won an Oscar for 1917 was also involved with Cats (probably because both are Universal movies).

[Romão 2,274]

I just don't understanding why they had the characters looking like they did. If you're going full CGI, make them look like actual acts, otherwise just take the same aproach as the stage show.

 

But the musical is corny as hell, anyway, it's not like it deserved much better