276

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

Totally with you on Desplat and Powell. I'd throw Giacchino in there as well. I don't know about Powell, but I'd gladly take Desplat and Giacchino over Zimmer any day--depending on the movie, of course.

bullet3 wrote:

You know what, ya, if you whittle your music down to where there's practically nothing to it and it's just 2 notes, it's really easy to do thematic things with them because your theme is almost non-existent. That doesn't impress me, and I'll go one further and say that does not automatically make it fit better for his movies.

It doesn't matter if it impresses you. That's just so not the point.

The best way that I've heard modern art (which obviously includes minimalism) described is, "I could do that!" "Yeah, but you didn't."

There's a lot to that little quote, but I think its most important implication is that "difficult" isn't always immediately obvious. You hear a Williams space battle and you hear a lot of notes and you go, "Wow. That sounds hard." Which it is. It's a bitch to write and it's a bitch to play. And for some reason, stuff that is obviously difficult--whether or not it retains any depth beyond that superficial response--impresses us.

[Not that I'm saying Williams' space battles don't have any depth. Every note that man writes is pure gold.]

On the other hand, you hear two notes, and you go, "I could literally shit that out in a minute." Which is actually bullshit. It's easy to say that something is overly-simplistic when the sound of it is ubiquitous. But to create something truly original--which there is no doubt that he absolutely has--is damn near impossible. And only those that have sat down in front of a score-less movie and gone, "…Welp, ok. Let's, uh…let's put music to this thing" will actually understand the true difficulty of coming up with the perfect two notes. Two notes that are perfect not for one character in one film, but are able to inform an entire trilogy of ideas.

If anything, it just takes courage, and the good sense to know when enough is enough. Like I said, he arrived at those two notes after starting with much, much more. I wouldn't be surprised if the two notes slowly revealed themselves--writing music often takes a mind of its own and tells you what the theme should be--and he was smart enough to follow that.

Last edited by Alex (2013-11-05 20:12:47)

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

Well said, Alex. I don't mean to over-reach and write off minimalism in scores, as I truly do like all kinds. John Carpenter is one of my favorite composers, and he's all about coming up with iconic simple riffs that permeate the entire runtime of his movies. I think it's just something specifically to do with the way action music gets written nowadays, where it just feels like driving background noise and nothing more than that, and it really bugs me lately. I think Zimmer's been guilty of it on several movies, though as you rightfully point out, his imitators are more to blame than the man himself.

There's a whole argument to be had about whether scores should be able to stand alone, or just need to complement the movie in the moment, but just personally, I believe the truly great scores are all able to stand alone. Whether it's orchestral, like Conan the Barbarian, or more minimalist modern like the Social Network, I think you can put those on in the background and appreciate and enjoy them completely removed from their original context. Ultimately though, when it comes to Zimmer, I don't ever go "Man, I feel like listening to the Dark Knight Rises score", or the "man of steel score". I throw on Broken Arrow, or Pirates, or Rango.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

You know what we call a score that isn't part of a movie?

An album.

ZangrethorDigital.ca

279

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

Art is the elimination of the unnecessary.

Pablo Picasso

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

280

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

bullet3 wrote:

Well said, Alex. I don't mean to over-reach and write off minimalism in scores, as I truly do like all kinds. John Carpenter is one of my favorite composers, and he's all about coming up with iconic simple riffs that permeate the entire runtime of his movies. I think it's just something specifically to do with the way action music gets written nowadays, where it just feels like driving background noise and nothing more than that, and it really bugs me lately. I think Zimmer's been guilty of it on several movies, though as you rightfully point out, his imitators are more to blame than the man himself.

There's a whole argument to be had about whether scores should be able to stand alone, or just need to complement the movie in the moment, but just personally, I believe the truly great scores are all able to stand alone. Whether it's orchestral, like Conan the Barbarian, or more minimalist modern like the Social Network, I think you can put those on in the background and appreciate and enjoy them completely removed from their original context. Ultimately though, when it comes to Zimmer, I don't ever go "Man, I feel like listening to the Dark Knight Rises score", or the "man of steel score". I throw on Broken Arrow, or Pirates, or Rango.

I don't think anyone ever goes, "Man, I feel like listening to the Dark Knight Rises score." big_smile I think it's by far the weakest of the trilogy (both the film and the score).

Action music is pretty boring nowadays, yes. Actually, the action-y parts of Zimmer's scores are my least favorite (besides Inception--he kept it fresh through the whole thing). His music is generally far more interesting during expository scenes, or during the final "wrap-up" scene (TDK trilogy and The Da Vinci Code come to mind).

I personally tend to like action scenes without music. Deathly Hallows Pt. 1, Children of Men, and LOTR are all good examples of that. Nothing throws you into the action, and really makes you feel it, like dropping out the score.

Sure--I'll agree with you that the best film scores tend to stand alone well. But is that because the music itself stands alone, or because your memory of the film--and its seamless integration with the film (which is a large part of what makes it great)--is inexorably tied to it? I for one love the Jurassic Park score and listen to it by itself all the time. But I honestly can't say that I can actually separate it from my experience with the film itself.

Also, does putting it on in the background mean that it stands up by itself? What about active listening? I understand that most people don't generally put on music and just listen, but just about any music can stand up by itself if you aren't really listening to it.

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

WELL I DONT LIKE HIS FACE

Thumbs up +3 Thumbs down

282

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

It sounds a sour note with you?

I write stories! With words!
http://www.asstr.org/~Invid_Fan/

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

Whew.  Okay.  I'm new and I'm just going to step off the cliff here with the following:

I earnestly love Battleship.

I will completely cede that it is not a movie for every audience and totally respect that pretty much everyone else, ever, thinks that it is a flaming pile of twaddle.

However, there were things I really liked about it.  So... defense begin now:

I honestly loved that the lead character is meant to be pretty universally disliked by everyone.  One of my favorite scenes in the film is the artillery guys asking who was left in charge and wailing for a quick end when they find out it’s Hopper.  Hopper fucks up constantly and to the point and severity that he’s indirectly responsible for the death of his brother and a lot of other people.  His arc is great for me because he doesn't go from in-the-trash to HEROEST HERO EVER, but instead, he goes from someone who has no sense of scope or stakes in his own life to someone who finally gets that there are stakes and that he can actually make good and right choices.  Plus the movie basically says Hopper is an idiot, everyone knows that, and I have no problem making that leap.

On a more earnest note, the movie really did nail something insubstantial.  My dad did his twenty in the Navy, my grandfather served in the Navy in WWII, and my Great-Grandfather served in WWI.  And while my dad does have a lot to say in criticism of the organization, the love and pride he holds to this day for having served is a palpable thing.  For the child of a family steeped in Naval pride, this movie hit a right chord with me. Hopper’s moment with the older sailors on the deck of the Missouri is a good example of this.  Sure it was hokey and cheesy and in line with the forced needs of the narrative, but the respect paid to the "old salts" and from the "old salts" to the younger officers and ncos felt real to me.  This movie isn't really a credit Kitsch can put on his "Did Shakespeare" CV, but in that moment, I believed him.  I liked that there was attention paid to the feelings and comportment of this film’s military advisors, and work was done to include the respect the filmmakers felt for those people. 

Also: Colonel Gregory Gadson.  I went bones-out apeshit for Colonel Gadson in this film.  I love that the film didn’t back off on showing the extent and collateral damage that Mick’s injuries left on him (as a character) and I was gleeful that they had an actual disabled amputee in a lead supporting role.  Moreover, while this was very definitely a first-role for Gadson, if you watch the behind-the-scenes, Mick wasn’t just a case of Gadson playing Gadson.  Gadson held his own in the film, especially in the action scenes where he beats up the alien.  I know it was stunt-casting, but they didn't just give him a short no-lines or action role.  Basically, the stunt-casting worked for me.

Was the script reliant on coincidence and a long series of dumb accidents?  Sure!  Was it based on a kid’s board game?  Yep!  This is not a great film.  I didn’t expect that when I walked in the door.  I went in because I knew there was a creative team behind it who’s work I’ve enjoyed (I mentally pre-ordered my ticket when I saw that the credited writers were the same team that wrote Red, which I also love), even if the premise was pretty ridiculous.  And you know what?  I had a good time.  I liked the cast, I laughed several times where they intended me to, and a few times when they didn’t.  It did more than it said on the tin (at least for me!) and while I’ll agree to disagree with, basically everyone, I’m fine with that.

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

284

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

I'm with you there. Here's my short take on Battleship: First act sucked, second act was alright, third act rocked my damn world. I saw it at the drive-in on Memorial Day and it felt perfect.

My negative feelings toward the first act stem from following Hopper around. He's hated by everyone, and that's fine, but I have a hard time staying for 45 minutes with someone that I just don't like at all and continues to do stupid things. Once they're out on the water is generally where I sit down to watch the movie (before that I find other crap to do, make dinner or something), and pretty much from the Missouri scene onward I'm paying rapt attention.

Boter, formerly of TF.N as Boter and DarthArjuna. I like making movies and playing games, in one order or another.

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

I enjoyed both Battleship and Battle Los Angeles immensely (the latter a bit more so). I'd love to see a supercut of these two spliced together.

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan

Thumbs up Thumbs down

286

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

I have liked Sparky's post for the display of courage and respectability-sound arguments.

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

The thing with Battleship is that the last 30 minutes is actually super awesome, it's just too little, and way too damn late. That's the annoying mis-calculation the movie makes. Old war veterans having to power up an old battleship and battle aliens because it's the only functioning piece of technology left is an Excellent premise for an Independence Day-style goofy fun blockbuster, I wish someone would make a movie about that. As it is, it's like you're watching this really shitty Michael Bay wannabe for 2 hours, and then suddenly a completely different, actual good movie comes on for half an hour.

Last edited by bullet3 (2013-11-07 07:46:51)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

Boter wrote:

I saw it at the drive-in on Memorial Day and it felt perfect.

Oh, man, that would have been FANTASTIC.  This was the PERFECT drive-in movie and I wish we had one close enough that I could have done that.  Would have been a blast!

Boter wrote:

My negative feelings toward the first act stem from following Hopper around. He's hated by everyone, and that's fine, but I have a hard time staying for 45 minutes with someone that I just don't like at all and continues to do stupid things.

Ah, I see.  Most of my high school and college experience involved following around people I didn't especially enjoy while they did stupid shit, so I probably built a tolerance.  That said, I was so charmed by the rest of the cast being 1000% done with him, I gave Hopper a pretty big pass.  But you, sir, have a good solid point!

redxavier wrote:

I enjoyed both Battleship and Battle Los Angeles immensely (the latter a bit more so). I'd love to see a supercut of these two spliced together.

You know, I never did get around to seeing Battle: Los Angeles, but I'll stick it in my Netflix queue.  If it's of a vibe with Battleship it'll probably be a fun Saturday afternoon flick.

bullet3 wrote:

The thing with Battleship is that the last 30 minutes is actually super awesome, it's just too little, and way too damn late. That's the annoying mis-calculation the movie makes. Old war veterans having to power up an old battleship and battle aliens because it's the only functioning piece of technology left is an Excellent premise for an Independence Day-style goofy fun blockbuster (et al)

I'll say we'll have to agree to disagree re: the first 2/3rds of the film.  This cheese definitely stands alone there!  But the section with the Missouri was seriously my favorite part of the film.  It always puts a stupidly gleeful smile on my face, and I applauded in the theater when it started.  And I would absolutely be one of the first people in line if someone did put together a Old War Veterans Save The Day film and got it in theaters.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

I'll throw mine out there... it's basically a rehash of from the Unpopular Opinions thread

* I think Matthew McConaughey is not a bad actor (But I'll admitt he has made his share of stinkers). I like Nick Cage for that matter too.
* The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles were not nearly as bad as people pretend them to be. I've had amazing talks about history with my boy after showing the series to him.
* I like the Tales of the Gold Monkey.
* My favourite vfx commentary to a movie is the Volker Engel commentary to ID4.
* I liked both the Lost and BSG endings.

---------------------------------------------
I would never lie. I willfully participate in a campaign of misinformation.

290

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

Squiggly_P wrote:

You know who's another actor who people shit on regularly on the internet? Shia LaBeouf. And he's amazing. I think he's going to go down as one of the best actors of his generation.

Assuming he ever works again. tongue

I feel the same about Nicolas Cage. Yes, he's chosen to be in some godawful films, but his acting is always 100% committed no matter what he's doing.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

291

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

So.... having now seen both, I prefer Burn After Reading to No Country for Old Men. In fact, the latter isn't even in my top five Coen Bros. films. All the yes to Javier Bardem though, he is one scary motherfucker.

This seems to be part of a growing trend when it comes to me and the Coens. My favorites of their films, Inside Llewyn Davis and True Grit, are nowhere near the most "major" of their filmography, and I place Fargo at #7 on my ranked list of their movies. I can't really articulate why this is a thing, because there's nothing I dislike about Fargo or No Country.

(For the record, my ranked list of the eight Coen Bros. films I've seen thus far is 1. Inside Llewyn Davis 2. True Grit 3. The Big Lebowski 4. O Brother, Where Art Thou? 5. Burn After Reading 6. No Country for Old Men 7. Fargo 8. Hail, Caesar!)

Last edited by Abbie (2016-04-17 02:51:18)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

292

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

Squiggly_P wrote:

I can totally agree with your first sentiment. The rest I can't comment on for lack of consumption.

You know who's another actor who people shit on regularly on the internet? Shia LaBeouf. And he's amazing. I think he's going to go down as one of the best actors of his generation.

Also, that Pablo Picasso guy? Overrated hack. He was talented, I admit, but he knew he could sell anything he made for a ton of money, so he left the path of craft and started farting out as many doodles as possible. It's why you can go on e-bay and find dozens of original picassos for next to nothing now. He literally flooded the market and kick-started the current 'modern art' paradigm, which I despise.

I've been to art museums and seen some of the crap there hanging on the walls. They always have these little cards next to the piece with the artist's intentions printed on them. Painting is a visual medium of communication. If you need a card next to your work that explains what your painting is supposed to be about, then you, my friend, have failed as an artist, and your work is garbage.

It's all a scam, anyway. White collar assholes giving government money to their friends in exchange for trash stapled together to be put on display and admired by morons who think that a plastic bucket duct-taped to a broken stepladder is a brilliant commentary on the materialism of the industrialized world contrasted against the lack of resources in third-world countries. In reality, the artist had a plastic bucket, a broken ladder and some duct tape.

There is nothing I can add to this conversation. Art is worth as much as you want to pay for it. I had an interesting poo the other day. Just FYI.

The difficult second album Regan

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

My controversial opinion is that Plinkett's SW reviews hardly contain any valid arguments at all, and the general opinion that they represent is as much of a cult as the worst fanboyism to be found on TFN.

For some interesting reason, opinions got "radicalized" since '99-'05, and the reasonable viewpoint represented by the balanced, mixed critical reviews from that time was pushed into the background - certainly in the whole area of internet critics and online debates.


However, I'm not sure how much interest there still is in that topic compared to 3-4 years ago, so I just thought I'd throw it out there...

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

Alex wrote:
TechNoir wrote:

OK, how about this feeling I've had for a while: Hans Zimmer is the worst thing to happen to film music in recent years.

He has done alot of great and moving work in the past, and glimpses of good work recently. But also recently, his dense orchestrations, repeating, epic ostinatos and thick mixes as heard in movies like The Dark Knight, Inception, Man Of Steel, have seen his soundtracks move in the direction of substituting intelligence and subtlety, and replacing it with nothing short of a repetitive, increasingly derivative, aureal assault. There simply isn't room for anything intelligent or interesting to compete with the onslaught of string and brass chords. Everything is structured in easily digested 4/4 meter with no rhythmic flair whatsoever. It's radio pop, now also in soundtrack form.

Now if it was just Zimmer though I'd be OK with it. But a consequence of this general style/approach still being sought after by studios and alot of moviegoers is that almost every major blockbuster is required to include elements of it. As a music lover and hobby composer I'm sick of it.

As much good music Zimmer has made over the years, a big part of me wishes he wouldn't have taken the mainstream soundtrack world with as much storm as he did.

*cracks knuckles*

Ok. I hate to hijack this thread with the first reply to it, but this is one of those oft-repeating topics that I feel the need to clear up.

........

Ok I'm done now.


For the sake of completion I noticed I didn't reply to this comment and I want to say thanks for the long write-up, we have a lot of points of agreement.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

295

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

TechNoir wrote:

For the sake of completion I noticed I didn't reply to this comment and I want to say thanks for the long write-up, we have a lot of points of agreement.

http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2013/1/7/cage37.gif

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

El Nameaux-Standardon wrote:

My controversial opinion is that Plinkett's SW reviews hardly contain any valid arguments at all, and the general opinion that they represent is as much of a cult as the worst fanboyism to be found on TFN.

For some interesting reason, opinions got "radicalized" since '99-'05, and the reasonable viewpoint represented by the balanced, mixed critical reviews from that time was pushed into the background - certainly in the whole area of internet critics and online debates.


However, I'm not sure how much interest there still is in that topic compared to 3-4 years ago, so I just thought I'd throw it out there...

This was a long standing topic on theforce.net boards for a while. Some found it to be entertaining, others found it to be rather irritating. Personally, I don't see as the worst of fandom but it certainly does not favors to arguing against the actual problems of the PT.

Same thing with most of other Plinkett reviews. They are hyperbole to the point of irritation. So, I can agree with you that that reasonable reviews have been pushed to back because of it.

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

By "worst fanboyism on TFN", I obviously meant irrational pro-PT attitudes that the board is kinda known for - the opinions there range all the way from that to levelheaded/balanced and even slightly negative (and that's just on the PT forum), but I'm particularly referring to the "apologists" that other people kinda scoff at.

Problem is, critics like RLM are every bit as unreasonable themselves, just in the other direction.

Not on most other movies I'd say - Plinkett's Titanic, KotCS and ST'09 are solid pieces of nuanced pro and contra analysis, not perfect but solid.
With SW, however, the bias hijacked their critical faculties, and out came pretty much nonsense - not just "hyperbole", but genuinely invalid criticism that seems to have swayed many.

Last edited by El Nameaux-Standardon (2016-05-03 05:14:08)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

Welcome to the forum, by the way.

That's fun, I don't think I've heard that angle on RLM before. Could you elaborate on an example of one of his major invalid criticisms that people seem especially taken with?

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

Although I found the RLM reviews to be very entertaining and thought they made some good points, I do agree that some of their points are a bit hyperbolic.

One of the points I disagree with RLM on is the "describe Qui-gon without using his appearance or profession". All they could come up with the in the review was "stoic", which I don't think is true. I would personally describe Qui-gon as someone who has strong & passionate beliefs to the point of being stubborn and getting tunnel-vision. I think he was probably the strongest character in The Phantom Menace. That's one that I remember off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are other exaggerated points as well.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

300

Re: Defend your most controversial film opinion.

What are those beliefs, though? That's something that comes up in the fan community as well, but I've never heard a good explanation of what exactly makes Qui-Gon a maverick and what he feels so strongly for without bringing in the EU to help. He believes in the prophecy of the Chosen One, sure, but no one on the Council seems to not believe in it, so that's not particularly helpful.

Thumbs up Thumbs down