Jump to content

What Is The Best Film Score Of 2010


Best film score of 2010  

47 members have voted

  1. 1. What is the best film score of 2010 among this list?

    • How To Train Your Dragon (John Powell)
    • The King's Speech (Alexandre Desplat)
    • The Lightkeepers (Pinar Toprak)
      0
    • The Ghost Writer (Alexandre Desplat)
    • Tron: Legacy (Daft Punk)
    • The Social Network (Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross)
      0


Recommended Posts

What is according to you, the best film score of 2010 among this list?

 

The scores of this list won an award for "Best Score", as voted by either one or more of these organizations:

  • The International Film Music Critics Association Award
  • The Online Film Critics Society Award
  • The Los Angeles Film Critics Association

 

Let's discuss these choices made by Critics!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favourite score of 2010 is INCEPTION (Hans Zimmer).

 

But of the ones you listed, it's easily TRON.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JoeinAR said:

None of the above for Joe.

 

Figure Dragon will win, someone here thinks its a masterpiece.

 

Someone? I'd say everyone

 

I like the score just fine (although I prefer the sequel more), but I never got the intense love for this as so many others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a reminder, that year the Oscar went to...

 

The Social Network Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross

 

 

Just now, JoeinAR said:

By the way have i missed best of  2001, 2002,2003?

 

We already know which are the best scores for those years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I object. I hear Lotr and I react as if I drank sour milk.

21 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

I object. I hear Lotr and I react as if I drank sour milk.

Don't laugh Bespin I end up looking like Ash in Alien 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HTTYD and Inception are a tigh for me.

Other nice score:

  • True Grit by Carter Burwell
  • The Ghostwriter by Alexandre Desplat
  • Predators by John Debney
  • Black Swan by Clint Mansell
  • Knight and Day by John Powell (a lot of fun)

I haven't listen to Tron yet though but I will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, asking to choose between HTTYD and TRON are like trying to choose a favorite between two children. While I always will thank the latter for essentially being my second gateway into film scores after Spidey 3, the former really is a superb effort in film scoring 

 

Ultimately though, T:L is too important to me to not award it my personal top spot of the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the ones you picked, HTTYD - although I’m not its biggest supporter.  Tron is fine.  Social Network is the pits.  Haven’t heard the others.
 

I do like Inception, True Grit, and Black Swan better than HTTYD of the ones others have mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bespin said:

This place as a thing against the Academy Awards!

Well they did make a lot of mistake. John Williams has only 5 wins and Jerry Goldsmith one. Just for that I can't like their decision.

STTMP and Mulan should have won easily so should have ESB, Raiders, Temple of Doom, TLC, Superman or War Horse (to only quote them)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as I see the Academy Awards, are they really forced to always give an Oscar to the BEST score? Or can they sometimes give an Oscar to CHEER a lesser known composer, an old-time unlucky composer, maybe someone who never won before but should have?  Is it possible to give him or her a tap on the shouder, like saying : you did a wonderfull work in the past years, we saw it, and you did a wonderfull job on this score too, well, continue your good work!

 

But where the Academy Awards make an error, according to me, it's when they give an Oscar to a « one hit wonder » composer who will never show up again in the Nominees. 

 

And that situation occured many, many, many times over the years. The biggest errors of the Academy Awards are there, in my sense.

 

You remember the year the Oscar went to that Jazzy score, no one listen today, instead of giving the Oscar to Morricone for "The Mission"?

 

Things like that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

I absolutely hate the co-relation between the Best Picture category and the Best Score category. It is totally ludicrous that 4 of the 5 nominees come from best picture nominees. This is simply not plausible. 

 

There as an unconscionable bias towards the "films of the year" so that every branch tries to throw nominations at them.

 

That's something I was going to comment on after Jay's post, and it's not exclusively related to music. Every year, at every awards, the big winners are those films that get the most awards. If film A wins best picture and nothing else, and film B wins best actor, actress, direction, cinematography, and score, A will be mentioned in a news, but B will be the big sensation, and A will have performed below expectations, because it only got one award. But while all these wins for B (if deserved) indicate that B is very much worth seeing for a number of reasons, A must be fantastic *because* it is the better film even though B has better performances etc.

 

In the end, the "technical categories" are perceived as points that count towards their films' total score, and they even explicitly discuss them on that level in the analyses before, during, and after the awards ceremonies. Unless a reporter/critic has a special affinity for a particular entry (e.g. a particular score, or the cinematographic style of a particular film), they will often mention how they hope that film X gets "at least" technical category A, B, and C, because they're likely to miss out on main category F but deserve at least some awards. And when you look at some of the leaked voting ballots, Academy members will often vote for the "technical categories" in the same way because even if they don't know the competition in a specific category, they want their favourite film to win so it gets a good "score".

 

The "main categories" have at least some merit of their own - people will readily acknowledge that a great acting performance can be judged (at least somewhat) separately from the quality of the film it's in. But most people will rarely consider the merits of a "technical" contribution to a non-standout film. Even though I'd argue that while a great acting performance in a lousy film can be worth watching for the performance but won't help the film, great cinematography or music can do two things: They can be great art in their own right (wonderful to look at, or an instant classic on album), and/or they can actually turn the film into something that's still lousy, yet compelling to watch. Even a score that's musically not very interesting can do that. I'm not sure I could think of an acting performance that's not remarkable "on the acting side" yet somehow elevates the film.

 

10 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

As opposed to Desplat - who I like, but is absolutely what I would think of as a "bait" composer. He gets hired or picks films that will be Oscar contenders and gets automatic nominations. 

 

Or perhaps he just likes to work on those types of films that also happen to appeal to broad audiences and the Academy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

That's something I was going to comment on after Jay's post, and it's not exclusively related to music. Every year, at every awards, the big winners are those films that get the most awards. If film A wins best picture and nothing else, and film B wins best actor, actress, direction, cinematography, and score, A will be mentioned in a news, but B will be the big sensation, and A will have performed below expectations, because it only got one award. But while all these wins for B (if deserved) indicate that B is very much worth seeing for a number of reasons, A must be fantastic *because* it is the better film even though B has better performances etc.

 

In the end, the "technical categories" are perceived as points that count towards their films' total score, and they even explicitly discuss them on that level in the analyses before, during, and after the awards ceremonies. Unless a reporter/critic has a special affinity for a particular entry (e.g. a particular score, or the cinematographic style of a particular film), they will often mention how they hope that film X gets "at least" technical category A, B, and C, because they're likely to miss out on main category F but deserve at least some awards. And when you look at some of the leaked voting ballots, Academy members will often vote for the "technical categories" in the same way because even if they don't know the competition in a specific category, they want their favourite film to win so it gets a good "score".

 

The "main categories" have at least some merit of their own - people will readily acknowledge that a great acting performance can be judged (at least somewhat) separately from the quality of the film it's in. But most people will rarely consider the merits of a "technical" contribution to a non-standout film. Even though I'd argue that while a great acting performance in a lousy film can be worth watching for the performance but won't help the film, great cinematography or music can do two things: They can be great art in their own right (wonderful to look at, or an instant classic on album), and/or they can actually turn the film into something that's still lousy, yet compelling to watch. Even a score that's musically not very interesting can do that. I'm not sure I could think of an acting performance that's not remarkable "on the acting side" yet somehow elevates the film.

 

 

Or perhaps he just likes to work on those types of films that also happen to appeal to broad audiences and the Academy.

 

I think it boils down to the hectic process and compressed timelines. Academy members are all regular film industry workers. 

 

All members vote for Best Picture regardless of  Branch.

 

So I think what happens is - say for example in the Composers branch - they have to watch the 15-20 films in contention for best picture anyways to vote for the best picture category. That itself is a huge commitment. So when you have already seen those 15-20 films, you just vote for those films in the best score category too without having to watch another set of 15-20 films to vote for the best score picks.

 

So the entire process gets skewed in favor of the best picture category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My secret motivation behind those polls, covering the 2005 to 2020 period, is mainly because the AFI 250 best scores list stops in 2005!

 

And between the Oscars, the Grammys, the critics choices, etc. I always found the AFI choices to have the necessary perspective to offer the most relevant view on film scores.

 

Well, that's my opinion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very surprised that Inception never got an award, thought people were blown away by the score back in the day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to give an award to a collective of ghostwriters cromposing under the brand name "Hans Zimmer".

 

That raises some questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bespin said:

It's hard to give an award to a collective of ghostwriters cromposing under the brand name "Hans Zimmer".

 

That raises some questions.

It was nominated for an Oscar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.