Jump to content

Score competition #2: Jaws vs. Jurassic Park


Which score is the better?  

51 members have voted

  1. 1.

    • Jaws
      27
    • Jurassic Park
      24


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ian Malcolm is a facinating character.

In the film? Hmm. I think I rather liked him in the film, but he's 50% punch lines. In the novel, he has real depth and is a very fascinating character indeed. Most of this happens after he's bitten by the T-Rex though - and that part was completely changed in the book.

Marian - wondering why so much important stuff was changed when Crichton himself wrote the script.

Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, the script that he wrote was very faithful to the novel, and very different than how the film turned out. after he penned a script, David Koepp came in and revised it two or three times, changing it a whole lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and Figo, i think what i said kind of came out wrong about Jaws being a two faced score. obvioussly, the score is much more complex than that, but i was trying to say that as a "listening experience," it has a dualist nature to it. some of it is downright primal, and whatever isn't is kind of almost opposite. but i think that's the beauty of the score and likewise the film. all the early scenes on land not involving the shark, or even in the second half when they are on the Orca, have the appearance of being happy and whatnot, when in fact, the mere suggestion or conversation of the darker events gets you tihnking about it. the presence of that two note motif in Jaws as always there in my mind every time i hear it, even in the lighter moments, because there is much more going on underneath. i hope this is making sense, because i'm sure if i'm properly explaining my feelings. i hope i am making sense though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to say this, Figo, but you are really rude.

Can't we discuss subjects without the risk of being insulted by people who dare to think their taste is more legitimate that the taste of others?

It's a pity your nickname has so much significance in my country.

Liking Jurassic Park and Tim Burton is a fault? So be it. I grew up with those movies and they mean a lot to me.

And the only video games I play are the Monkey island games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaws has better acting, better drama, better scares, better dialogue, better pacing and of course a much more memorable and better score. The only thing that Jurassic Park has going for it is the CG effects, but Jaws works perfectly despite the fact that we rarely ever see the shark.

No, Jurassic Park also has a cool story going for it even with the problems.

It would have made a hell of a lot more sense for the dinosaurs to eat Hammond, in the classic Frankenstein tradition of the over-reaching scientist being consumed by his own engineered abomination

I hate stories like that though, because I totally disagree with what it says about science.

The transformation into doddering inventor was a major miscalculation.

No way :nod: And the sciencists complaining about them interfering with nature was really silly, I do not think real sciencists would think like that because it's almost a religious view point. It's Spielberg's point of view. Sciencists are more likely to ask is their a risk of them escaping the fences or the island, that kind of thing. Rather then the silly things they said like we don't have the right to do this. :roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites
and Figo, i think what i said kind of came out wrong about Jaws being a two faced score. obvioussly, the score is much more complex than that, but i was trying to say that as a "listening experience," it has a dualist nature to it. some of it is downright primal, and whatever isn't is kind of almost opposite. but i think that's the beauty of the score and likewise the film. all the early scenes on land not involving the shark, or even in the second half when they are on the Orca, have the appearance of being happy and whatnot, when in fact, the mere suggestion or conversation of the darker events gets you tihnking about it. the presence of that two note motif in Jaws as always there in my mind every time i hear it, even in the lighter moments, because there is much more going on underneath. i hope this is making sense, because i'm sure if i'm properly explaining my feelings. i hope i am making sense though.

YES!!! It's completely man vs. nature, one of the very basic conflicts they used to teach in grammar school literature classes. The shark and anything associated with chaos and destruction is, as you say, primal. Where man is involved, we get fugues and trumpet voluntaries, sea shanties and heroic pirate music. Man aspires, the shark devours.

Merkel, I have no desire to poison the name of Figo in Portugal. I'm sorry for being so heavyhanded. Tim Burton is not my favorite, and even with my best stab at objectivity, I can't see Jurassic Park coming anywhere near Jaws, either in quality or execution. I forget sometimes that it is no fun for someone else to belittle something you yourself may hold dear. I do have a tendency to overstate my case. I'm sorry. I assure you I was only having fun. It's always a challenge, you see. You should be flattered!

Figo, who actually enjoyed Jurassic Park as he was watching it in the theatre (although he knew even then it was no classic) -- but will never, ever, ever say anything nice about Batman, even under threat of banishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright figo, I'm sorry if I got angry. Maybe I tto did overeact a little.

And when you say we'll never a kind word about batman form you, you were talking about the score, not the character, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal attacks are a forfeit in a debate.

Jurassic Park has a distortion of sciencists always just annoyed me. Most sciencists will not see any problem with bring back dinosaur's other then keeping the dinosaur's contained and thinking it would be too hard to achieve that to a satisfactory level, ie safety and environmental issues. Spielberg had to bring in his religious viewpoints which sound silly and out of place coming from a maths professor like Malcolm! It's like having an interview with Williams with him talking about rap or pop music.

Plus I wish these movies would focus on being 'anti-applied science' rather than just plain anti-science :nod: Experiments and knowledge are necessary for leading to other things, ie, the knowledge of how to make a Frankenstein could lead to new medical techniques which makes it important to try and find out how to make one, doesn't mean that you have to part mass producing dead people though :) I totally disagree with Jurassic Park's message which is don't toy with nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am talking about the movies. I adore the character as he appeared in the comics of my childhood, and even in the nastier versions later on.

I trust, then, that the private message I sent you is superfluous?

In that case --

beerchug

LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morn, you would completely deny the romantic tradition of o'er-reaching science being a blasphemy against God and nature? You would allow such hubris to go unpunished? Well, okay, perhaps, in a film about scientists surmounting obstacles and ignorance in pursuit of a cure for syphilis. But do you seriously expect a movie that builds its entire premise on preditory T-Rexes and velociraptors hunting down and devouring people to celebrate their resurrection as a positive scientific advancement?

Now, that's f***ed up...

Figo, thinking we should keep Morn the hell away from the cloning laboratory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Morn, you would completely deny the romantic tradition of o'er-reaching science being a blasphemy against God and nature? You would have such hubris go unpunished?

I find such viewpoints... offensive :nod:

But do you seriously expect a movie that builds its entire premise on preditory T-Rexes and velociraptors hunting down and devouring people to celebrate their resurrection as a positive scientific advancement?

Yes I do, but reckless use of that advancement :) My problem is how that issue was tackled in the movie :sadwavey: It's not the advancement that is bad, it's the use of the advancement that is bad. Make one or 2 dino's under close control for the sake of research, but a dino park is reckless. Yet the movie focused on the advancement being bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, here's the movie Morn would like to have seen:

A well-intentioned scientist discovers how to clone dinosaurs from DNA extracted from mosquitos encased in amber. Everything comes off exactly as planned, without a hitch, generating zero suspense and absolutely no conflict. The scientists all work together happily and get along with one another perfectly. There is no greed, no personality conflict, no equipment failure, nothing illegal to hinder the project. When the dinosaurs are resurrected, they have the appearance of cute stuffed animals. For a time they are even bottle-fed; but as they mature, they are graduated to the petting zoo, where they are hand-fed smelts by small children, who also lovingly stroke their noses. They become thoroughly domesticated, so much so that they willingly make themselves available for "pony rides." To all appearances, it is the new Eden. Except it really is the new Eden. There is still nothing to compel our interest, the movie is boring as hell, and we are already nearly an hour into it. Someone eventually gets the bright idea to put one of the kindly specimens on television, surrounding it with multi-ethnic kids who sing imbecilic songs to one another, set to well-known, pre-existing melodies. Truly mindnumbing stuff. It is excellent PR. The dinosaurs are embraced by everyone. The visionary and avuncular scientist is awarded the Nobel Prize for his benificent efforts, and people the world over coexist happily with velociraptors and T-Rexes, who help them out with their household chores.

THE END

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not true :nod:

I merely wish it criticised recklessness rather than science :) I would have most things the same way, but I would change what Malcolm and others say to Hammond, I'd instead of them being critical of razing dino's back to life, have them critical of their ablity to keep the dino's secure and healthy.

I'd remove the silly science criticisms and keep all the commericialism criticisms :sadwavey:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for Jaws by a longshot.JP is weak in acting,the adapted screenplay is weak,ansd seems to have been done to advance CGI.Besides,I will repeat again thescore is badly mixed in thae movie.

K.M.Who seems to the only one wo thinks the music during the first sighting of the Brachoiosaurus is terrible. :nod: Just take out your DVD or VHS and you wil note that the music goes up and down when the scene should have been silent there(no oohs and aahh's by the actors.)

K.M.2Who has made Crusher notice that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think the music in that scene is pretty weak, as well, but you and I definitely seem to be in the minority. After the helicopter ride to the island and that jaunty syncopated music for the jeeps, the transition to the banal "awe" theme is too abrupt, for one thing. For another, I'm actually a pretty sentimental guy, believe it or not, and I still couldn't buy into it. The scene has no genuine emotion and the music sounds as manufactured as the actors' simulations of awe. It doesn't help matters that the first ant's eye shot of the dinosaurs with the live actors in the foreground also happens to sport some of the weakest CGI in the movie. The effects improved later on, thank goodness; Williams does some interesting things with the velociraptor music; and as I've mentioned elsewhere, that cue on the soundtrack, "My Friend, the Brachiosaurus," strikes me to the very core of my gummy heart. But the two most famous themes everyone here keeps going on about are way overdone. What's more, they are not very interesting. But hell, it's only a dinosaur movie, right? Still, one wonders what Bernard Herrmann could have done with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who needs awe, when you could have clashing woodwinds, crazy percussion, multiple organs and a Sephardic bantha horn? Herrmann would have been great. As I say, the scenes where we are supposed to feel awed are the stupidest scenes in the movie, anyway. What really pays off is when everything goes haywire and the dinosaurs start eating people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Herrmann would have been great.

Williams was great.

As I say, the scenes where we are supposed to feel awed are the stupidest scenes in the movie, anyway.

Never liked Dino's much hey? :mrgreen: And Williams had to do something to fit Spielberg's aweness :mrgreen: So would Herrmann.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Figo, that is quite possibly one of the funniest things I've read here in quite a long time.

Bravo!

Neil

If that really is the case, why didn't I get one of these?:

:mrgreen:

Figo, misunderstood genius.

I don't really use emoticons.

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I have to disagree with both KM and Figo.

Journey to the Island is a perfect cue. It is in my mind on of the best 5 or 6 cues in Johnny's career. Who cares how the sound is mixed. I absolutely love that track. And it is "the" moment in JP. It is the big payoff. Unlike Macolm's discription, this discover in the film is poignent and full of awe for me.

It is that moment that Figo and Morn discussed about. When harmony exists between Man and Dinosaurs. Of course it couldn't last and if it did JP wouldn't have made so much money.

Joe, who loves Jaws more, but still loves JP, likes LW, and dislikes JPIII. Absolutely hate the Spinosaur which looks like something out of a Godzilla film. Still wishing for a T-rex, Triceratops battle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
... Jurassic Park is inevitably a bit more satisfying. one thing that people have to remember is that film scores have to do two things. 1) compliment what is on the screen and function within a film, and 2) function as a stand-alone piece of music.

I'm going to have to disagree on that one. A film score only has to do the first thing you mention. The reason the film composer gets paid to do a job is to primarily compose music that compliments the onscreen emotions and actions. Then, if there's to be a CD release, he or she may compose a suite of music.

CD releases are most likely not considered at the onset of composing the score. It's just icing on the cake after a job well done.

Jeff, who is probably part of the Jurassic Park generation, but knows that Jaws is the scarier and more innovative film

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you love that cue, Joe. It's great to hear the trumpet fanfare that first time when you see the film in the theatre, with the helicopter approaching the island. Ditto for the jeep music, which is one of those bouyant transitions Johnny is so good at writing. But for me the unveiling of the dinosaurs always rang false, and I've seen the film multiple times. I think Morn may have inadvertantly pinpointed the problem by saying Williams couldn't really have scored Spielberg's images any other way. Spielberg has been lambasted for his strong sentimental streak, which definitely works to his advantage in a film like E.T., but gets in the way of more "serious" projects like Schindler's List ("I could have saved mooooore." bawling). He has definitely proven that he has a nasty streak -- T-rex gobbling the lawyer off the toilet is an example of that -- but the sentimental stuff, even the relationship with the children, really doesn't work in JP, IMHO. Watching the film, I completely had the impression that Spielberg was more focused on his CGI dinosaurs (as was the audience) than on any human story. Hence, all the "characters" come off as one-note. This definitely was not the case with Jaws, in which the director had the brilliant idea (and necessary, since the shark wouldn't work properly) of shooting the entire movie (except the underwater stuff) from a human perspective. We've had this argument before, but Jaws would have been so much less effective if CGI technology had allowed us to get closer to the shark.

Anyway, as it stands JP comes across as b-movie junk (albeit pleasurable to consume, like most junkfood), hardly worthy of raging debate (except here at the jwfan board :biglaugh:). True, Lucas and Spielberg have both made their fortunes raiding the lost ark of Saturday afternoon serials. But sometimes straw can be spun into gold (Star Wars), and sometimes we wind up with just the chaff. Unfortunately, Jurassic Park is no real improvement over its predecessors, like King Kong and Mysterious Island. The effects are more believable, perhaps, but in the end, that's all we wind up caring about.

By the way, Morn, I happened to be fascinated with dinosaurs when I was a kid, just like everyone else. Some of you act as if it is your generation alone that is able to appreciate them. They've been around for quite a while, you know. :mrgreen:

Figo, besotted with emoticons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But for me the unveiling of the dinosaurs always rang false, and I've seen the film multiple times.

I know what you mean, but even though it's false, it's still nice to see the dinosaur's :mrgreen:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have said, "in the end, that's all we wind up caring about, no matter how much syrup is ladeled on top."

Yes, it was nice to see the dinosaurs. But I didn't even realize Samuel Jackson was in the film until I watched it a second time, a perfect illustration of my point. Maybe Spielberg should have worked in a sentimental scene where Jackson perfunctorily telephones his mother, who is sick in the hospital. :roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites
actually, the script that he wrote was very faithful to the novel, and very different than how the film turned out. after he penned a script, David Koepp came in and revised it two or three times, changing it a whole lot.

That will be the reason Koepp is eaten by the T-Rex in San Diego :mrgreen:

-----

I wonder how many of the people here have read the books, despite I love both films, I find the books so much better. I'd die to see them filmed faithfull to the book, especially Lost World, which is only very losely related to the book (ok, I accept the fact that it wouldn't have much audience-attracting action in it... but just to see Lewis Dogdson being eaten by the baby Rexes :mrgreen: I found that a great stroke in the book, that finally after his very small role in JP we see more of Dogdson)

One reason I liked JP3 was that it has several scenes (most noteworthy the Pteranodon habitat) that were in the JP book, but sadly missing from the film.

-Chris, now going to watch JP and Lost World, and jsut having begun reading JP again

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read JP, and i agree, the story and character are much more complex then in the film, which seems to have dumbed it down so that everybody....and I do mean EVERYBODY can follow it.

Never got round to TLW, is it true that Hammond and Malcolm are alive and well in that book?

Stefancos- who was surprised to hear that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither.

The Lost World and Jaws 2 are far superior scores to both, IMO.

1. TLW: JP 2

2. Jaws 2 (Close... nearly a tie)

3. Jurassic Park

4. Jaws

As for the movies, I liked TLW as much as JP the film (at 1st I thought it sucked, but it grew on me with each viewing), and Jaws 1 sorely defeats Jaws 2, which as pretty bad (but good for a laugh... the helicopter scene... LOL).

1. Jaws

2. The Lost World (Although I used to like JP better)

3. Jurassic Park

4. Jaws 2 (Distant behind... LOL)

-Chris, Loving his probable different opinion and stands by it... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Personal attacks are a forfeit in a debate.  

I disagree. I sometimes result to name calling when I realize that the person I am debating with simply cannot admit when I beat him/her on a point. Conceding points when won and lost, not stubbornly holding on to them without proof. This is why I don't like to debate with you, Morn... before long I resort to name calling because you often change the facts and sometimes the actual meanings of words to suit your debate. That is a forfeit in a debate, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, personal insults can be savagely funny when employed inventively.

Of course, I'm not surprised that someone who can't give tit for tat would throw in the towel simply because he can't keep pace, and then call the exchange forfeit. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Little correction here, in the book TLW Hammond is dead. In fact at the end of JP Hammond and Malcolm are dead, but near the beginning of TLW it is said that Malcolm only was rumored to be dead. After Hammond's death InGen very soon goes out of business. So instead of Ludlow's horde of Dino Hunters (how realistic) we have Biosyn Corp.'s Lewis Dodgson coming to the island with two companions, trying to steal eggs from the nests. And the characters are great; After reading the book in summer holiday '97 I was already looking forward to seeing Dr. Levine, Doc Thorne, Eddie, Kelly and Arby on screen (let alone Dodgson) :) The interaction between the characters is great, as in the first book, and the characters are really important for the story (Like I said, there isn't that much action in it, but well plotted).

Well, I'm losing focus :jump: Enough now. I can only say: !Read This Book! :jump:

-Chris, JP Fan

Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. I sometimes result to name calling when I realize that the person I am debating with simply cannot admit when I beat him/her on a point
.

You shouldn't, you should just tell them :)

Conceding points when won and lost, not stubbornly holding on to them without proof.

Like you always do. :roll: And you only think I lost, your arguements aren't *that* good :jump:

This is why I don't like to debate with you, Morn... before long I resort to name calling because you often change the facts and sometimes the actual meanings of words to suit your debate. That is a forfeit in a debate, IMO.

Bullshit, and the meanings of words are never set in stone.

Link to post
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...