quote:

---

Originally posted by Timmer:
Good call on the NP postings there Pete K, I have more than once been influenced to play something I haven't heard in a while from seeing someone elses NP!

---

Or even bought it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaun Rutherford:
NP---Jennifer Lopez sex tape

---

Who "scored" that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by madono_x:
Please..What is the official running time for Pearl harbor soundtrack???? only 42 minuts of score???? 42 minuts composeds ONLY BY hans zimmer or with collaborations??

---

Nevermind. I was gonna say something, but it's nothing out of the ordinary... and that makes this post completely pointless. How special.

Jeron

Kinda odd (the 42-minute length of the album) considering the film is nearly three hours.

I'm wondering how much music is in the final film, and if they plan on putting out a "More Music" album (ala GLADIATOR).

Of course, maybe that means we'll get the "There You'll Be (Juba's Mix)".

:-D

It may very well do exactly the same thing: suck.

IMDB--whose numbers may be rounded up--say that's $1,835,300,000 dollars of suckage, worldwide....my guess is that at least $5 of your precious dollars are included in the figure. Suckers.

On the plus side, I saw a lengthy clip from PEARL HARBOR the other day, and was amazed to observe that Bay has learned that it is possible to assemble a single scene WITHOUT cutting every two to three seconds. But this very change in "style" (alas, Bay really could be said to have one) further bespeaks the inherent cynicism of this project.

They did it because Titanic became the highest grossing movie of all time and gave Cameron the Oscar.

They took a look at that film's numbers and said 'Gee, what other American tragedy could make for an epic event film?' And the took Pearl Harbor. They got the guy who wrote Braveheart, cast their favorite son Affleck and a British chick who can fake an American no-accent to lead a cast of newcomers and established B-listers, and handed Bay a budget to match.

That's true and you know it.

So now here we come up on the big day and Disney is acting as if this will be the movie that sinks the boat as all time champ. They're forcing exibitors to follow a Lucas-esque guideline of rules setting the film up as the summer event to end them all...

Where Titanic had a heart and soul, Pearl Harbor will not. Disney and Bay will be in for a wake up call that will once and for all clear up who truly was the driving force behind Armageddon.

Hint: It wasn't Ben Affleck

Bruckheimer/Bay films are by their very definition empty and souless. Armageddon benefited from it's supporting cast of actors like Willis, Thorton, and Patton. Not from Ben Affleck.

What amazes me is that Disney saw fit to hinge such a psuedo epic on Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett, two of the biggest non appealingly unemotional actors of our age. While yes, the film also has Baldwin and Gooding something tells me they won't be on screen but a scant few minutes.

People who willing pay to see this will get not deeply emotional drama, but lovingly rendered shots of the Japanese bombs killing hundreds of innocent sailors using the most up to date state of the art special effects. Following this will be lots of poorly acted scenes of Affleck leading a charge of American survivors as they seek revenge.

In short, audience manipulation the likes of which even Spielberg himself isn't capable of.

They reason this isn't headed for anything other then tanksville is because unlike Titanic, Pearl Harbor is a manufactured product. What I mean is its very existence has been calculated to mimic the Cameron film from the buzz generating talk of being over budget, to the wishful thinking of Oscar glory.

Right down to the love ballad by Diane Warren/Faith Hill. Horner/Jennings would have done it, but that would have meant that they would have had to lose the electronic noise which is this year's 'epic' Hans Zimmer score.

But the catch to all this is that Titanic was a fluke, a true phenomena the likes of which we may never see again. It had a tragedy that wasn't used as fodder to make money (and I mean solely) not to mention appealing stars. Something about the movie clicked and for whatever reason it is what it is.

Pearl Harbor has none of this, that much at least is obvious to me from the trailers. Plus, while Titanic had the theaters to itself from December 9th 1997 to April 11th brought the opening of Lost In Space, Pearl Harbor will have the hundred pound gorilla which is Lara Croft to deal with two weeks later. And in today's age of audience non-loyality, Pearl Harbor will be washed out to sea come mid June regardless of how well it's made or not.

It will make money, but it won't be nearly as memorable as 1941 come Labor Day.

This disclaimer may not mean a lot to anyone here, but I doubt I'm either making new friends or creating new enemies (considering I had either) by saying what I'm saying--I'm not trying to be the resident cheerleader/******* around here--but it honestly surprises me that anyone with this kind of predisposed negativity that anyone claims to be a "film fan"...So, my question here is "Why do you bother?" Where does one get the energy for such contempt? It's as if more hours per year are spent ranting about the movie, and coming up with "clever" put downs, then hours actually spent *in* the theater.

Making movies isn't brain surgery, let's admit it. Everyone involved has to eat, too. People make movies to make money, they're not just doing it out of some noble attempt to be a suffering artist.

(Ok, so that's the *captalistic* argument.)

Because the Oscars (clearly, the world's *foremost* indicator of quality) don't turn out the way *you'd* like, you think the entertainment world has gone to capitalistic hell. Boo-hoo.

Here's more useless arguements:
"No one knows how to have fun at the movies anymore."
"It's just a movie."
"You haven't even seen it yet!"

So what's the real arguement here? It seems that the only alternative is: "Better to have NO movie than a movie made by either 1) People who make Expensive Movies, 2) People Who Have Had Success in the Past, or 3) People who have made Popular Movies in the past."

I would argue, though, that criticism doesn't necessarily imply cynicism. Drix's post isn't predisposed negativity. And no, it's not better to have no movie, under any circumstance. Pearl Harbor will arrive, and moviegoers will do with the movie as they please.

Until then, I enjoy reading various takes on how movies might fare this summer - and there are many takes, considering the many unpredictible factors involved in the actual outcome of a movie's success. Predictions for success and predictions for failure could easily carry the same weight in sense, and at the same time. That's why I like reading about it.

Sure, I also like conceptual stories about the inceptions of monkey-see monkey-do films, just as Drix has told. Whether or not it's true doesn't matter. It's a fun read, and full of interesting analysis. Hollywood is too big of a machine to have any one thing (other than a movie) scripted out entirely (although movies aren't often scripted out according to original plans, either).

When some studio has a surprise hit, how many people want to imitate that success by thinking they can outsmart the public, and repackage the same movie, put a different spin on it, and sell it along with a pop-song "inspired by" album (hey, kids love pop songs, right?!)

Or, if they can't do that--play on the emotions generated by the movie, because kids love a sappy, tragic romance...so let's take every sad event in the world, pump 20 mil. into it, and throw in a couple of ill-fated fictious love birds...(Shakespeare, sans the inflated budget, did that 500 years ago: "Romeo and Juliet"....) "Hindenberg", a Richard Donner film..."Challenger" by Ridley Scott--this film has not yet been rated, but it'll probably be PG-13, featuring Jewel's "Space Shuttle of my Soul"....

Ok, I'm thick on the sarcasm. My point is--this is what the entertainment industry does. People are going to run out of breath before they quit.

"Rush Hour 2" hits theater this summer. Did I like the first one? It was ok--nothing special. Lalo Schifrin--great score. Grammy winner, too, I believe. Did Schifrin sign back on for the sequel? I don't think so. But will there be a "Rush Hour 2: Inspired by" album? It's a good bet. Execs are more pliable to the idea that a "inspired by" album will sell better than a sappy score with a sing pop song/love ballad attached to it. (No, I don't see the love ballad being a selling point of "Rush Hour"....)

I can still love going to movies generally speaking, but because I have discriminatory tastes (which is not a bad thing), I like certain films and dislike others. While what Drix has said above is quite interesting (a lot of the analysis I find myself agreeing with), it's not going to stop me from seeing the movie. Further, I don't think that was Drix's intent with his post. But maybe I am wrong. I took it as an observation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancelot:
IMDB--whose numbers may be rounded up--say that's $1,835,300,000 dollars of suckage, worldwide....my guess is that at least $5 of your precious dollars are included in the figure. Suckers.
(Pearl Harbor equating to Titanic? Hope so.)

---

The state of our nation is such that one can hardly be more than 45 minutes away from any decent video rental store...(and the average price of a rental as of now still falls short of the average matinee ticket so--slap yourself on the back for getting a bargain!)

<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by John:
. Not MY money... I got it free from the library... and man, it wasn't even worth free. </BLOCKQUOTE>

John--whattaya want, a candy bar or something for gettting to see it free? Aren't you the lucky one....the rest of the world did it the hard way, too bad we didn't have your vision. Maybe you and Lou should get together some friday night....

Ok, now I'm being an dumbass. Tough, I suppose...seems that not being an dumbass isn't a prerequisite on this board, so....(for those who follow the double negatives....)

[Message edited by Lancelot on 05-21-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancelot:
...which is in reality, is as good a reason as any why people are disenchanted with soundtrack fans...this inter-composer bickering, I mean...

---

Hey, you're right, fans of other music genres don't bicker at all over which artist is better or best or why. I'm sure all AC/DC fans appreciate Van Halen, and a Dr. Dre fan wold never make disparaging remarks about Lil' Kim. It's all clear now!

Oh yeah, well ranted, Drix.

1) Are we supporting the artists or the genre? ...Because when tackling Pop Music, the odds are INCREDIBLY stacked against film music.

IF composers were filed by name in the music store, (as opposed to title), there might be a whole new consideration to this arguement--but in...oh...98% of this nation's stores, it's alphabetical by title of movie.

I support the genre of film music, despite the composer. We need differentiation within the genre to make it worthwhile. (And we all know it's worthwhile--but few others do.) So when Van Halen and Snoop Doggy Dog fans clash, I think--(and I could be wrong here, but I don't feel that I am)--it's a different story. Not that they aren't quite successful at what they do, but they get much more commerical coverage, they get music videos for the short-attention spanned. To appreciate film music, a different kind of perception is needed.

This may be my sense of "film music patriotism" speaking here--(a particular aspect of mine which is under a great deal of stress daily, on this board), but right now, I don't think we need this "civil war" amongst ourselves, trying to shoot legs off of composers before they get going. What we NEED is more film scores and less of these "music inspired by" albums. Any high-school drop-out moron (apologies--they're not *all* morons) with a garage band can get a hit song, and sign it over to some "Music Supervisor" attached to a studio, and have it on the shelves everywhere--but someone who actually wants to *score* a film--how many former rock stars are switching over to instrumental composition, (e.g., film scoring)? Elton John, Trevor Rabin, Billy Joel....?

Mark Mancina, Randy Edelman, Michael Kamen, James Newton Howard have arranged music for jazz and rock muscians. (John Williams, as well.)

There are programs encouraging music majors in our nations' colleges to pursue film scoring...(and forgive me for sounding a tad melodramatic here, but)...what good is it to resign them to lives of obscurity for pursing their art? How much music are we *not* hearing, because the studio commerical suits have decided that what the public needs is another "inspired by" (which, in reality, is *not* what the public needs--but what they think will sell, and subsequently line their pockets.)

So, when I say that, for the genre, we should cut the intercomposer bickering.....well, figure it out.

Our debating over which of our favored composers is superior is not unthealthy, nor does it in any way diminish the sales of film scores, or their popularity. Criticism, positive and negative, is healthy for a genre. It discourages plagiarism, monotony, and half-assedness(sic), among other things, and it encourages those artists that are doing it right to keep doing it, and those that aren't to get better. Unfortunately, none of us are perfect universal critics, and so we argue it out, express our thoughts and opinions, and debate the merits of each composer in turn. This helps the genre to grow and mature.

In addition to all of that, seeing people argue passionately about something doesn't diminish other peoples' interest in it, it increases it. Think about it - if you hear two people arguing, one saying that book A is the meaning of life manifested in material form, and the other saying the same about book B, it doesn't make you want to read neither book. It makes you want to read both, and compare for yourself.

So when I say that, for the genre, we should encourage the intercomposer bickering...well, figure it out.

And for the record, yet once more--While I don't think electronic instruments have anything to do with a composer's ability, being just another medium for his/her art, I DO dislike Hans Zimmer and Media Ventures, and I WILL argue against plagiarism, be it HZ's of Holst or Horner's of himself, and I will welcome the chance to defend these opinions against all comers, that we might mutually challenge our perceptions and be enlightened.

Just using an example here, but when two guys start arguing about whether Jean-Luc Picard can beat up Captain Kirk, does it make you more interested in Star Trek?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancelot:
Andre--
You're not even worth responding to...

---

Am I not? But you did it anyway... Hilarious!

And you are right lad. We don't have prozac here in America. Instead we make sex. It's great. You should try someday... But with other person, you know.

Yes.

ANDRE:
Q.e.d. Still waiting to hear something useful out of you.

Film music is good for the creative mind. All film music.

Y'know that old song "Accentuate the positive...Eliminate the negative"--Yeah, you know the one. I''m saying, if [e.g. Zimmer] isn't your cup of tea, fine--why not spend your energy getting behind other composers, Jarre, Hermann--whatever. So what if "the younger generation" likes new composers? The point is that they like composers. You might even sway a few to see your point of view with a little friendly persuasion (not the Tony Soprano brand of "friendly persuasion) rather than this "You Zimmer-freaks suck!" [Insert smiley-face, cause this is a joke for those of you that really know me...

Anyway--I think you see what I'm getting at. The bad stuff? (If you feel it's bad) Why focus on it? You can point in the dark and say "Look out, pit!" or you can get the flashlight out and show how to get around.

I dunno--I'm resorting to odd metaphors here, but it should be clear. What I think our best object here is to get the word out. Not sit here and play "my composer beats yours." I think this kind of attitude can get us some serious attention in the commercial world, rather than this "Titanic"-brand fluke phenomenon, where sucessful film music is a trendy fad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hasta:
yesterday and this guy said that Zimmer's score sounded quite Morricone-ish. So, maybe you'll think it sounds like Goldsmith or something =P Just wait and see.

---

Actually, the music sounds, at times, like both composers. Mostly like Barry and when the soprano voice kicks in in sounds like Morricone.

Ehm...on a different note: How much of this music do you think Zimmer actually wrote himself. I like heard he only composed...

Scott

NP:Something classically...too lazy to get up and look.

THANKS!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
[B]Those who have suggested otherwise are making conjecture or being sarcastic[B]

---

No, I am not being sarcastic. I have it from a very reliable source that Zimmer actually only composed 15 minutes worth of material for the movie.

Normally, I could care less, for I do like the score. But I think, if it is not all Zimmer, he should have at least the desency to share billing with those who helped him compose this film.

But...that's only my opinion (as far as the desency thingie goes)

Scott

No--My real arguement is defending film music against the apathy that exists for it in the professional/commercial/social world. That is not to say that "I'd love it if film music was more commercial"...I just wish that it garnered as much (professional/social) regard as, say, Christina Aguilera's.

Filmmaking is a strange and odd process, and it's curious to see, in the end, what artistic decisions are made, and by what or whom they were influenced. Sometimes, the inclusion of songs are an appropriate decision. Sometimes, they're as useless as nipples on men. (Sorry, I've been watching "Time Bandits" again...)

My arguement is let the newbies, the professionals, and even the artists themselves know what you want to see more of. The real arguement here is against those damn "Inspired by" albums. They're useless--most of the time, (but gosh, if they don't look all neat and commercial.) They don't sell much, because it's hard to tell what will sell. They take up space. They encourage this sort of scatterbrained short- attention span, the MTV generation. You want to see less MTV-style directors, stop ranting against their movies, and focus on something you do like, and encourage them to do similiar.