We are witness to John Williams declining ability.

[Morlock 11]

I do miss that "Jazz" Alex talked about, and I do agree about WoTW, but I think Williams action cues still pack a punch in them every now and then. I think 'Anderton's Great Escape', 'The Quidditch Match', 'Quidditch: Year 3' and 'Chase Through Coruscant' are all fantastic action cues, all unique, and are all very specific to the films and scenes they were written for.

[#1johnwilliamsfan 0]

notice he's been nominated for Oscars for all the original trilogy, and he's been nominated for the prequels how many times?

This is a completely invalid arguement to use as "proof" of the supposed "inferiority" of the prequel scores, and here's the reason why...

True, Williams WAS nominated for Oscars for all three of the original "Star Wars Trilogy" scores. Same thing can be said for the "Indiana Jones" trilogy. But that was during a time when I believe there were different rules for the qualifications for nominations for soundtracks and scores. During that time a score for a sequel or prequel could be considered for Oscar nomination even if it used recurring themes or material from a previous film. Therefore, "Empire" was eligible for nomination even though they reused previously established themes and material from the original "Star Wars"...same way "Jedi" was eligible for nomination even though it used material and themes from both "Empire" and "A New Hope".

NOWADAYS...the rules are different. Now, I cannot name the PRECISE wording of the rules used for Academy Award nominations for scores, but...these days (since the new rule was implemented) a film's score CANNOT be nominated for an Oscar if the music for the film uses/consists of a certain percentage of previously established/used themes or material.

THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS "EPISODE I" and "EPISODE II" WERE NOT NOMINATED FOR BEST SCORE

Now...is that the only reason? Perhaps it is...perhaps it isn't. We'll never really know. But I can say for certain that it is ONE of the reasons they were not nominated. I remember reading an article regarding this subject and this very issue back in the year 2000 when the nominations for Best Score were announced and many people complained that Williams was snubbed for his work on "EPISODE I".

Of course...some people will read this post and argue that this is not the case, stating that, "HARRY POTTER and the PRISONER OF AZKABAN" was nominated for Best Score. This is true...but, again, the rule for nominations is VERY specific...and Williams' lack of usage of previous "HARRY POTTER" themes and motifs in his score for "AZKABAN" allowed for the score to be nominated because it wasn't composed primarily of and didn't rely heavil;y on previously material.

I know this all sounds ridiculous...but it's true. You can do a little research on the topic if you don't believe me.

Either way, the information I just provided (regarding the rules governing eligibility of scores for Academy Award nominations) COMPLETELY invalidates the logic behind the arguement in this quote...

notice he's been nominated for Oscars for all the original trilogy, and he's been nominated for the prequels how many times?

It is impossible to say that since the Prequel scores were not nominated for Oscars they are invariably inferior scores. They were not ELIGIBLE for nomination to begin with. Sorry. You'll have to do better than that.

[Jeshopk 8]

There was no way the prequel scores were going to be nominated no matter how good they were. They feel that they honored Williams for his big, symphonic accomplishment already. And the movies were not well liked, by the academy. The Matrix special effects won over TPM, which is really funny to me. It would be like awarding best effects to "The Muppet Show" instead of "Dark Crystal"

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

There was no way the prequel scores were going to be nominated no matter how good they were. They feel that they honored Williams for his big, symphonic accomplishment already. And the movies were not well liked, by the academy. The Matrix special effects won over TPM, which is really funny to me. It would be like awarding best effects to "The Muppet Show" instead of "Dark Crystal"

It's a crime, IMO

They should have made a prize for them as new tech achievement or something...

[MrScratch 294]

There was no way the prequel scores were going to be nominated no matter how good they were.

I disagree, had the film been better received by critics the film might have garnered more technical nominations. Score, editing, etc.

Jeff

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

He was meaning the scores in that sentence. He actually said the same as you more or less here

And the movies were not well liked, by the academy.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

notice he's been nominated for Oscars for all the original trilogy, and he's been nominated for the prequels how many times?

This is a completely invalid arguement to use as "proof" of the supposed "inferiority" of the prequel scores, and here's the reason why...

True, Williams WAS nominated for Oscars for all three of the original "Star Wars Trilogy" scores. Same thing can be said for the "Indiana Jones" trilogy. But that was during a time when I believe there were different rules for the qualifications for nominations for soundtracks and scores. During that time a score for a sequel or prequel could be considered for Oscar nomination even if it used recurring themes or material from a previous film. Therefore, "Empire" was eligible for nomination even though they reused previously established themes and material from the original "Star Wars"...same way "Jedi" was eligible for nomination even though it used material and themes from both "Empire" and "A New Hope".

NOWADAYS...the rules are different. Now, I cannot name the PRECISE wording of the rules used for Academy Award nominations for scores, but...these days (since the new rule was implemented) a film's score CANNOT be nominated for an Oscar if the music for the film uses/consists of a certain percentage of previously established/used themes or material.

THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS "EPISODE I" and "EPISODE II" WERE NOT NOMINATED FOR BEST SCORE

Now...is that the only reason? Perhaps it is...perhaps it isn't. We'll never really know. But I can say for certain that it is ONE of the reasons they were not nominated. I remember reading an article regarding this subject and this very issue back in the year 2000 when the nominations for Best Score were announced and many people complained that Williams was snubbed for his work on "EPISODE I".

Of course...some people will read this post and argue that this is not the case, stating that, "HARRY POTTER and the PRISONER OF AZKABAN" was nominated for Best Score. This is true...but, again, the rule for nominations is VERY specific...and Williams' lack of usage of previous "HARRY POTTER" themes and motifs in his score for "AZKABAN" allowed for the score to be nominated because it wasn't composed primarily of and didn't rely heavil;y on previously material.

I know this all sounds ridiculous...but it's true. You can do a little research on the topic if you don't believe me.

Either way, the information I just provided (regarding the rules governing eligibility of scores for Academy Award nominations) COMPLETELY invalidates the logic behind the arguement in this quote...

notice he's been nominated for Oscars for all the original trilogy, and he's been nominated for the prequels how many times?

It is impossible to say that since the Prequel scores were not nominated for Oscars they are invariably inferior scores. They were not ELIGIBLE for nomination to begin with. Sorry. You'll have to do better than that.

We all know about this.

But explain one thing too me.

Return Of The King was nominated and won an oscar even though it relied to a large extent on themes from the previous 2 films.

(BTW i'm pretty sure those rules you mention were not yet in effect when TPM was released)

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

The rules were entered for the 2003 Oscars I think (which would be awards for 2002 releases), which is why TTT didn't get a nom. I wonder if that rule is actually still around, or whether they've cancelled it already.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Return of the King was nominated and won in spite of it.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

TPM did deserve an Oscar nomination,

AOTC did not

[tony69 0]

IMO, Matrix really deserved to win for special effects. TPM was good in its own way but it wasn't as important as the effects in the Matrix. Matrix truly revolutionized special effects with its bullet time and asian choreography. Movies post-matrix employed alot of the new techniques which pissed off the wachowski brothers (there's an interview about their pissness:P).

But yeah, i remember the announcement of that rule. And they also added another segment about the composed score having to be over 40 minutes or something, and hence Aviator was not nominated. Mind you, the Aviator score was crap IMO, but this illustrates the point someone made earlier about the Academy changing its rules regarding original score.

[Adam 1]

Reading the JW-is-declining train of thought, I tend to imagine JW having a car accident, suffering slight brain damage, right before he was set to score The River in 1985. Luckily Temple of Doom came out before the accident or we would have heard a much worse score, or so the logic would suggest. (And no doubt we'd all be listening to The River right now if they only would have greenlighted that film a couple years earlier.)

But sarcasm aside, the 1975-1984 stretch was unprecedented. Not only was he scoring lots of popular, successful films but they were films where music really mattered to the movie, above and beyond the usual. Surely no film composer has ever had such a huge stretch of opportunities and hits (albeit well-deserved). But, to me, its like asking if Reivers is better than John Goldfarb. Of course, but it seems silly to say JW got better in 1969 just in time for The Reivers. Its a reflection of the opportunity he had, in large part.

That’s not to say there hasn’t been a personal evolution on JW’s part - I just think its exaggerated. Over the years, I’ve maintained my enjoyment of the bigger stuff, and its probably his earlier era where a lot of my favorite stuff is but it doesn't really break down neatly into eras. Its the more intimate scores where I can really trace my own interest increasing. And its in his later years where he's had more opportunities for this thing which is either a plus or a minus depending on what you want.

But there’s a lot of JW and a lot of art for that matter that is only going to be “good” if you’ve cultivated an interest or taste for it. Some people like the more recent JW as much or more and some people don’t. There’s no evidence of a decline that I've read but plenty of evidence that people are looking for different things when they listen to him.

- Adam

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Matrix truly revolutionized special effects with its bullet time and asian choreography.  

I don't see that as a good thing, many of those shots were developed for the NFL, it wasn't revolutionary, hell they used it before the Matrix. And asian choreography has been around for years, again nothing new.

and now seeing those kind of effects are similar to hearing My Heart Will Go On.

[A24 4,348]

Matrix truly revolutionized special effects with its bullet time and asian choreography.  

I don't see that as a good thing, many of those shots were developed for the NFL, it wasn't revolutionary, hell they used it before the Matrix. And asian choreography has been around for years, again nothing new.

Yes, as seperates, but it's the combination of Asian fighting, Sci-Fi and Cyberpunk that made The Matrix rather newish.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Matrix truly revolutionized special effects with its bullet time and asian choreography.  

I don't see that as a good thing, many of those shots were developed for the NFL, it wasn't revolutionary, hell they used it before the Matrix. And asian choreography has been around for years, again nothing new.

Yes, as seperates, but it's the combination of Asian fighting, Sci-Fi and Cyberpunk that made The Matrix rather newish.

----------------

Alex Cremers

...now dated.

[A24 4,348]

I see. What dated it? Equilibrium perhaps ?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Equilibrium. Say that ten times really fast.

[Ollie 1,059]

Despite the "slow-mo" bullet shots some of the visuals for the Matrix looked poor.

Oh well they gave Kong 76 an oscar for effects and that has some of the poorest blue screen effects ever.

[A24 4,348]

Despite the "slow-mo" bullet shots some of the visuals for the Matrix looked poor.

The Matrix visually poor? This is a bold and unusual statement. I wonder what you mean by it.

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

I think ROTK has very orchestrated old themes and thats why it was eligible, and thats why its the best LOTR score.

[SturgisPodmore 0]

Never trust a reviewer who can't even put his exclamation marks inside his quotes or apostrophes.

~Sturgis

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

It says : "Forget 'The Matrix'! This Movie will blow you away!"

I think that is correct....

[nightscape94 965]

It is inside the quote, you're looking at the ' which surround the title The Matrix. If you look at the end of the word Away! you'll see the end quote.

Tim

[SturgisPodmore 0]

I do see it. But it should still say "Forget 'The Matrix!' This movie will blow you away!"

"Hedwig's Theme," "A Window to the Past," and "Buckbeak's Flight" are all really good cues.

And the commas are within the quotes.

~Sturgis

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

Grammar, bah...

[A24 4,348]

Grammar, bah...

It's a terrible movie anyway.

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

And the score (i suppose) is not excellent.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Grammar, bah...

It's a terrible movie anyway.

Any movie that proclaims itself to blow away a multi-million dollar box-office succes out of nowhere on its movie poster sounds fishy to me.

[Jeshopk 8]

The Matrix visually poor? This is a bold and unusual statement. I wonder what you mean by it.

I'll back that one up. They look bad most of the time. As in, not real. You could use the excuse that it all happens in a computer, but it looks especially bad in the future world.

There are great shots, like the helicopter building ripple. But bullet time and bend and stretch pavement, and badly textured enemies really bring the quality down.

[A24 4,348]

The Matrix visually poor? This is a bold and unusual statement. I wonder what you mean by it.

I'll back that one up. They look bad most of the time. As in, not real. You could use the excuse that it all happens in a computer, but it looks especially bad in the future world.

There are great shots, like the helicopter building ripple. But bullet time and bend and stretch pavement, and badly textured enemies really bring the quality down.

They look bad? As in "not real"? Badly textured enemies? Now I get it, you're talking about the Star Wars Prequels, right? True, I never saw so much fake characters in one movie before. Yoda is quite the record-holder, though Obi and Anakin really aren't far behind.

Anyway, what is this got to do with The Matrix being visually poor? Sure, maybe you don't like the film's style or colors, but to call it "poor" is quite an stretch, since the visuals are exactly what The Matrix is praised for.

So Mr. Smith (enemy) brings the quality down? Hey, that's funny. And I suppose Dooku brings the quality up? Hahaha! Don't quite your day job, Jessie.

[Lurker 5]

Alex, I think you are misunderstanding Jesse. There's no question that The Matrix is a visually stunning film from a design standpoint. I think he has more problems with the execution and not the concept of the effects.

I think the second film looks ridiculously bad and that the "Burly Brawl" resembles a low-res video game more than a multi-million dollar sci-fi epic.

Neil

[JoeinAR 1,949]

especially the wauble on all the heads. Matrix was interesting, but never worthy of Best Special Effects.

Like I said the Bullet time was being done in the NFL, Matrix had that I've seen this before kind of look.

[SturgisPodmore 0]

Like I said the Bullet time was being done in the NFL, Matrix had that I've seen this before kind of look.

So they strapped football players up and filmed them for hours in hundreds of different positions for one replay?

I don't think anyone had seen anything quite like The Matrix before. Sadly it's been copied ad nauseum. It was the same kind of leap in effects tech as Star Wars, Jurassic Park, etc.

The new technology was incredible, but several times in the movie, the effects did not look extremely convincing. Overall, very good, but Reloaded has serious issues, most noticably in the "Burly Brawl."

~Sturgis

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

I do see it.  But it should still say "Forget 'The Matrix!'  This movie will blow you away!"

"Hedwig's Theme," "A Window to the Past," and "Buckbeak's Flight" are all really good cues.

And the commas are within the quotes.

Not in some countries. In Australia and the UK, you'd write:

"Hedwig's Theme", "A Window to the Past" and "Buckbeak's Flight" are all really good cues.

Also note the missing second comma; redundant when followed by a conjunction ("and").

However when quoting someone, punctuation that isn't for a noun with extra quotation marks remains the same. i.e.:

"Forget 'The Matrix'! This movie will blow you away!"

More on-topic (to the current topic somehow generated as opposed to the actual topic title), I am of the opinion that the effects in The Matrix were ground-breaking, and I don't think anyone can argue otherwise. Just look at the countless parodies and cheap imitations. Whether you like them or think they're realistic is an entirely different question, however.

~Pete, who thinks that "Grammar is one of the greatest joys in life, don't you think?" (and who possibly screwed up the punctuation of that last sentence/quote...)

[A24 4,348]

I think the second film looks ridiculously bad and that the "Burly Brawl" resembles a low-res video game more than a multi-million dollar sci-fi epic.

That is true. They should've sticked to the first one only. It's the sequels that bring down the quality.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

The Matrix movies are too goth for me.

[A24 4,348]

It too stylized to be "too goth".

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Pseudo-coolness, black trench coats and Marilyn Manson music say otherwise.

[nightscape94 965]

I do see it.  But it should still say "Forget 'The Matrix!'  This movie will blow you away!"

"Hedwig's Theme," "A Window to the Past," and "Buckbeak's Flight" are all really good cues.

And the commas are within the quotes.

Not in some countries. In Australia and the UK, you'd write:

"Hedwig's Theme", "A Window to the Past" and "Buckbeak's Flight" are all really good cues.

Also note the missing second comma; redundant when followed by a conjunction ("and").

It's the same here in the US too, I don't know what Sturgis is getting at

Tim

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

No, in the U.S. you put punctuation insude quotations, and the second comma in a list of three things is optional. I always use it, but it's also fine not to.

Ray Barnsbury

[A24 4,348]

Pseudo-coolness, black trench coats and Marilyn Manson music say otherwise.

That's goth lite.

[SturgisPodmore 0]

~Pete, who thinks that "Grammar is one of the greatest joys in life, don't you think?"

What did you think of Book the Twelfth?

~Sturgis

[Jeshopk 8]

I don't think anyone had seen anything quite like The Matrix before. Sadly it's been copied ad nauseum. It was the same kind of leap in effects tech as Star Wars, Jurassic Park, etc.

Why, then when I watched it in the theatre was there not even one moment where I thought they had done something difficult? Was "bullet time" the only great leap forward? If so, that amounts to basically a photoshop filter, as in, it is a camera speed technique. Slo mo has been around forever, so a digital/wire/multi camera variation on slo mo is not impressive at all. Just because one particular form of slow motion had not been done before, in a couple shots in a movie, does not make it earth shattering. The effect of seeing someone suspended in mid air is nothing compared to the impact of Star Wars or Jurassic Park. Underwhelming in 1999 to say the least. Matrix was a fad. Star Wars is myth. Phantom Menace raised the bar far more that year in fabricating more realistic environments and digital chracter interaction. It took much more ingenuity to bring forth Theed than it did those couple of underwhelming bullet time shots.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

The most impressive thing about the VFX in The Matrix was not the effects themselves, but they way they were used. Unlike in Phantom Menace, there weren't all kinds of critters and silly things happening in the background. Every effect in The Matrix served the story.

[A24 4,348]

Matrix was a fad. Star Wars is myth. .

No, your Star Wars (the Prequels) destroyed the myth.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

~Pete, who thinks that "Grammar is one of the greatest joys in life, don't you think?"

What did you think of Book the Twelfth?

~Sturgis

:oops: I haven't read it yet...

[SturgisPodmore 0]

What kind of fan are you?

~Sturgis

[nightscape94 965]

I don't think anyone had seen anything quite like The Matrix before. Sadly it's been copied ad nauseum. It was the same kind of leap in effects tech as Star Wars, Jurassic Park, etc.

Why, then when I watched it in the theatre was there not even one moment where I thought they had done something difficult? Was "bullet time" the only great leap forward? If so, that amounts to basically a photoshop filter, as in, it is a camera speed technique. Slo mo has been around forever, so a digital/wire/multi camera variation on slo mo is not impressive at all. Just because one particular form of slow motion had not been done before, in a couple shots in a movie, does not make it earth shattering. The effect of seeing someone suspended in mid air is nothing compared to the impact of Star Wars or Jurassic Park. Underwhelming in 1999 to say the least. Matrix was a fad. Star Wars is myth. Phantom Menace raised the bar far more that year in fabricating more realistic environments and digital chracter interaction. It took much more ingenuity to bring forth Theed than it did those couple of underwhelming bullet time shots.

I say 'screw the Matrix' anyway. See Dark City instead, it doesn't get enough props, and it came out the year before The Matrix and got overshadowed.

Tim

[JoeinAR 1,949]

please Jesse, don't give the Matrix that much credit. It was not the same kind of leap in effects technolgy as Star Wars or JP

[A24 4,348]

I say 'screw the Matrix' anyway.  See Dark City instead, it doesn't get enough props, and it came out the year before The Matrix and got overshadowed.

Because Dark City wasn't that good. I mean, it had a year to do its thing and it failed.