1. After the raging success of TITANIC, Disney and its studios had long been collaborating on an idea for a good "cheesy- romance-set-over-historical-tragedy" epic that would anniahlate TITANIC's standings in the box-office

2. Tragedies such as Pearl Harbor, the Lusitania, and the great earthquake of 1908, were all chief considerations.

3. After the idea of Pearl Harbor was penned, Disney chose Jerry Bruckheimer to man the project that would "revolutionize" movie-making.

4. With street credit on such romantic epics as ARMAGEDDON, GONE IN SIXTY SECONDS, THE ROCK, BAD BOYS, TOP GUN, and the always memorable FLASHDANCE, Bruckheimer seemed the prime cut to recreate the US navy's biggest loss with emotion, respect, and dignity

5. With an incredible filmagrophy of three films under his belt, Michael Bay was gladly handed the job to bring this to the American audience.

6. The production studio willingly dished out 145 million dollars in order for Michael Bay to bring his vision to life.

7. None of this was spent on scripting.

8. Nor acting

9. Nor eloborate scoring.

10. Nor intermediate lessons on parachute- room lovemaking

11. Nor esearch on the actual Pearl harbor attack

12. The money was instead spent on reduced models of the USS ships, ficticious dogfights, big explosions, Ben Affleck's paycheck, and cool swing dancing.

13. Unfortunately, There was need for a sudden script change.

14. Randall Wallace stepped in, and substituted his script for the film, after Tom Green's far more superior work of literature was rejected for unknown reasons.

15. In the new script, Wllace introduces a love triangle about a good-looking tramp, who loves her boyfriend, but can't seem to get enough of his best friend at the same time.

16. This (one of the more interesting plot genres of our time) was stretched out over two hours and twenty minutes.

17. The main character's name was RAFE

Little known facts...

1. I knew all of this prior to seeing the film

2. I saw the film

I can only hope I'll be forgiven for believing... for hoping... for praying that Jerry Bruckheimer, Michael Bay, Randall Wallace, and Ben Affleck could pull off -potentially- an emotionally powerful epic that snouted out any movie that came its way....

I told ya so!

I could...

I'm sick of...

You guys...

Too much...

but as long as we're playing the "Facts" game:

Jerry Goldsmith's last four films (Along Came a Spider, The Hollow Man, The Haunting, and The 13th Warrior) recieve a combined average of 2.25 stars according to filmcritic.com

Armageddon and Pearl Harbor each recieve 2.5 stars...(a whole .25 of a star!)

USA Gross totals (rounded up, for sake of nitpicking) for Goldsmith's last four films are about 264 million. Armageddon grossed 202 million alone.

In reality, I hate critics, I hate the star rating system, and I hate the fact that a movie should be judged on its' gross totals. Besides, Goldsmith's score, more often than not, was probably the more interesting thing about those pictures....he can hardly be blamed with the pictures' lack of critical appeal.....but I'm just playing the numbers game here to prove that something can be greater than the sum of its' parts...(or parts can be greater than the whole of its' sum...)

quote:

---

God... I am a dumbass!

---

Ben Affleck was paid $250,000 up front for PEARL HARBOR. And that's it. Not the large amount you hinted at in your post. Also: real planes and naval vessels were used in filming. The majority of it was CGI and models, but still, some originals were used. Also, the movie was 3 hours, 3 minutes long. Not that two hours and twenty minutes you so claim.

Get your facts straight next time. That's what makes you the dumbass.

How in the hell did Goldsmith enter this?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hornerfan:
Ben Affleck was paid $250,000 up front for PEARL HARBOR. And that's it. Not the large amount you hinted at in your post.

Actually, Ben agreed to that sum for a part of the profits from the film. Very smart move actually, considering that this movie stands a good chance of making a good profit.
Also, the movie was 3 hours, 3 minutes long. Not that two hours and twenty minutes you so claim.

Actually, what he meant (I think) was that over two hours were wasted on the romance alone. Had that been eliminated, we could have had a tolerable 1 hour movie.

Get your facts straight next time. That's what makes you the dumbass.

Kinda looks like you didn't read correctly and had some problems with the facts ya self mate. Perhaps we are all dumb@$$?

Scott

Mike[/B]

---

About Affleck's salary: That's why I said $250,000 UP FRONT. I knew about the profit pay, I just didn't feel like getting into it.

The length: The romance never was two hours and twenty minutes of the film. You forget the Doolittle raid, and the sequences leading up to it.

quote:

---

Originally uttered by Reddi:

...
4. With street credit on such romantic epics as ARMAGEDDON, GONE IN SIXTY SECONDS, THE ROCK, BAD BOYS, TOP GUN, and the always memorable FLASHDANCE, Bruckheimer seemed the prime yada yada yada...

---

Ah, yes, The Rock and Gone In 60 Seconds, those great romance classics. *sniff*

Great post, man. I laughed. I cried. I agreed. I gave it stars, for Steve's sake. Lots of stars.

Oh yeah, and Mike? Reddi didn't say how much Affleck was being payed, only that it was part of the budget, unlike scripting and acting. He also didn't say models were used exclusively, only that money was spent on them, and his comment about length referred to some nebulous 'plot genre' that could easily have taken how ever long he thought it took. Sounds like some of your arguments are WRONG, despite your clever use of caps FOR EMPHASIS.

And hell, I wish I could forget how they wedged Doolittle in there. Don't even get me started on that, unless you happen to enjoy seeing me write stuff as much as I do.

-Prob

PS: Steve, you were better off with
"It's...
I could...
I'm sick of...
You guys...
Too much..."

Just that...

Dumb asses...

Who the hell cares....

quote:

---

Originally posted by jonathan_little:
How in the hell did Goldsmith enter this?

---

Let me see if I can explain:
Lancelot is often angry with the people on this board who trash movies that he likes (like Pearl Harbor), and feels they are being elitist snobs. These people are often the same people who are die-hard Goldsmith fans and trash composers like James Horner and Hans Zimmer (which are his faves). So, in trying to take a stab at these Goldsmith fans, he's stating that Goldsmith's last 4 films sucked even more than Michael Bay's. However, I don't think that really bothers Goldsmith fans as they all know that Goldsmith scores lots of crappy crappy films- it's his MUSIC that we/they care about- which is most of the time quite good.

Did I get that right?

I've been avoiding all these Pearl Harbor debates lately until I actually saw the film (which was last night). It really amazes me how people can actually defend the film and the score. I try to be very open minded when it comes to film and other artforms, but I'm absolutely amazed that there are people out there who not only can be tricked into eating this garbage- but to actually like it as well. With The Mummy Returns, I was well aware of what I was being fed walking into the theater and I think Stephen Sommers made no effort to hide that fact.

But in the case of Pearl Harbor, it's quite obvious that the filmmakers were trying to make a huge action-drama that tried to replicate aspects of Titanic and Saving Private Ryan- but failed miserably. There's absolutely no reverence for the actual event- it's all fake- one of the darkest moments in American history reduced down to nothing more than a pretty videogame. Saving Private Ryan was no video game. Titanic and Full Metal Jacket were no video game. Pearl Harbor is fish guts disguised as caviar. It's sickening...

But I think what nauseated me more than the direction and the screenplay was the reaction of the audience in my town. They laughed at all the right moments, cried at all the right moments, and cheered at all the right moments. They all exclaimed, "This is one of the best movies I've ever seen..." as they exit the theater. A friend that I saw it with is even pissed at me right now because I didn't love the film... Michael Bay could've made a comedy/musical on the Oklahoma City Bombing and I bet it would've gotten the same audience reaction as Pearl Harbor.

Oh well. It's just a movie.

Tim

two hours, 20 minutes- Ok this was a joke. However, I was simply implying that the plot mentioned in 15(Love story), was stretched out over two hours. Yes I was exagerrating, but hey cut me some slack.
yes there were models used, and they were smaller than what was constructed 50 years ago, that's all I said.

I'm just trying to emphasize the massive dissapointment I had with the film. Let some producers/directors with some experience in this kind of film genre take a stab at it. I don't think the subject manner was handled properly at all. Pretty soon, we all clued in on what the film was really for: A showcasing for hot young stars to prance around in a historical event where "stuff blowed up real good". Come on, could that dogfight really have happened.

Reddi

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim_P
...I'm absolutely amazed that there are people out there who not only can be tricked into eating this garbage- but to actually like it as well...

---

I don´t want to make enemies here, but Tim, you´re right. Is not that I hate these people, but they do hate you back, and they get so offended that they don´t want to talk to you anymore, geez!

NP. Star Wars Main Theme(Williams/Boston Pops)
http://www.xtrasports690.com/video/pigeon.avi

Let me see if I can explain:
Lancelot is often angry with the people on this board who trash movies that he likes (like Pearl Harbor), and feels they are being elitist snobs. These people are often the same people who are die-hard Goldsmith fans and trash composers like James Horner and Hans Zimmer (which are his faves).

Negative, Ghostrider. I'm often upset that people who trash ANY movies/composers can't find something more constructive to do like focus on something better than ranting and raving about how The Hollywood Machine is sucking in bucketfuls of idiots every day...

[These people (who rant and rave) often tend to extol the virtue of St. Jerry. Perhaps I'm drawing a generalization here...I dunno. This is where you can prove me wrong.]

If you read my profile, (which I'm not asking you to do, really), you'd see that I don't play favorites. I love Goldsmith...and Horner...and Zimmer...and Williams...and I truly wish Carter Burwell had more scores on CD...

And, in trying to take a stab at these Goldsmith fans, he's stating that Goldsmith's last 4 films sucked even more than Michael Bay's.

I'm just playing with my computer here, and showing off some interesting numbers. (As I stated, I hate critics, I hate the star system, and I hate judging the quality of a movie based on gross reciepts.)

However, I don't think that really bothers Goldsmith fans as they all know that Goldsmith scores lots of crappy crappy films- it's his MUSIC that we/they care about- which is most of the time quite good.

On occasion. Even John Williams has his bad days. But that's just opinion, too. Zimmer's music, most of the time, is quite good. (Oh yes it is. Yes it is. Yes it is x Infinity.) Horner's music, most of the time, is quite good. Ransom I hardly listen to, but still....I like it. Your milage may vary.

Still--if you don't care for it, fine. Say so, by all means. But bear in mind the phrasing of an opinion can be a delicate matter. Or not. (The odds aren't always in one's favor...sometimes, for every 5 people that liked it, 1 doesn't. Sometimes, it's the exact opposite.)

Did I get that right?[b]

Well...you be the judge.

[b]I've been avoiding all these Pearl Harbor debates lately until I actually saw the film (which was last night). It really amazes me how people can actually defend the film and the score.

Well...prepare to be amazed. It's a wide world out there.

I try to be very open minded when it comes to film and other artforms, but I'm absolutely amazed that there are people out there who not only can be tricked into eating this garbage- but to actually like it as well.

With The Mummy Returns, I was well aware of what I was being fed walking into the theater and I think Stephen Sommers made no effort to hide that fact. But in the case of Pearl Harbor, it's quite obvious that the filmmakers were trying to make a huge action-drama that tried to replicate aspects of Titanic and Saving Private Ryan- but failed miserably.

Based on....your opinion?
Is it so wrong that one should attempt to emulate without imitating?
One of my early thoughts, in the scene where Alec Baldwin is chewing out Ben was "Top Gun before inflation"....

There's absolutely no reverence for the actual event- it's all fake-

Hint: So were the raptors in Jurassic Park...

One of the darkest moments in American history reduced down to nothing more than a pretty videogame. Saving Private Ryan was no video game. Titanic and Full Metal Jacket were no video game.

Not even with the guy at the end there saying "Game over, man?" (Full Metal Jacket)

Pearl Harbor is fish guts disguised as caviar. It's sickening... But I think what nauseated me more than the direction and the screenplay was the reaction of the audience in my town. They laughed at all the right moments, cried at all the right moments, and cheered at all the right moments.

Those bastards!

They all exclaimed, "This is one of the best movies I've ever seen..." as they exit the theater. A friend that I saw it with is even pissed at me right now because I didn't love the film... Michael Bay could've made a comedy/musical on the Oklahoma City Bombing and I bet it would've gotten the same audience reaction as Pearl Harbor.

Well...whose fault is that?

Oh well. It's just a movie.

Bingo, Jimminy.

NP: Atlantis

Good score. (It's an animated movie though...just letting you in on the secret.)

Tim, with all respect, I'm not trying to antagonize you and piss you off here...I believe that here, my opinion is as valid as yours, even if I'm in the minority here, and despite a few colorful sidetracks here and there, I've made an effort to respond as clearly and logically as possible....

How about this approach:
"What did you like about the movie?"
Nothing? "Have you seen anything lately that you did like?"
"Good! Tell us about it!"

But writing myself--or anyone--off on this board, or in your hometown, or wherever--because you think we're brainwashed to the critical main stream....well, hadn't you better figure out where we stand, and consider that, before laying down the smack? We're not all zombies out here. I'm sure you want to sway people to your opinion, as do I, or anyone here.

We're film score fans--we should be used to being in the minority!

Ok...just as a postscript here:
It's good that you care about history. Bear in mind that a film, already as long as that one is, can't show you everything. I don't think that this film (even as claimed by Bay and Bruckheimer), is trying to be 100% historically accurate, or trying to tout itself off as the be-all-end-all of WW2-in-the-Pacific movies. They had an idea, they went with it. They did a good job (I think--my opinion....I stand alone....fate has place me here....into the valley of death rode the one...the needs of the many outweigh....ok, I digress...) I don't think they're trying to re-write history...just bring attention to it. Yes, it's important. And the good thing about a VHS/DVD player is: when you're done watching one movie--you can put another one in! So, it is concievable that in a day's time--or perhaps, at least over one week--one could watch Pearl Harbor AND Tora, Tora, Tora. See? No brainwashing here--you can get the full film-captured scope of the experience.

On the Critierion Armageddon DVD, [Yes, clearly the jewel of my library--it sits on a little altar with candles and Trevor Rabin music playing...] Bruckheimer says that his dad told him you can make money if you can sell things to middle America. Bruckheimer had success several times over based on that concept alone. Middle America is a LOT of people. (Surprisingly, I don't have a number for you. More than a million.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hasta:
Hey DANIEL2... I mean Lancelot...

---

I'm not quite sure that was warranted, Jason... there's a difference in what Steve has posted and the historical jibber jabber novel-writing that Daniel2 does.

Good points Tim, good points Steve. The idea of a Criterion Armageddon DVD sitting on an alter with candles and Rabin music playing is pretty scary, though!

quote:

---

Originally posted by jonathan_little:
NP: E.T. -- Trying to figure out what I'm not hearing.

---

Maybe I can help... you know all that soft stuff you say puts you to sleep? That's actually beautiful music.

Granted, it doesn't have the empty heft of half the sh*t in JURASSIC PARK, but nobody's perfect.

(Before any of you jump on me for that, let me state for the record that I mean it more as a criticism of JP the movie, not Williams often fine score.)

If you can't figure out by now what's better for you to spend your time and money on, well, there isn't much hope.

But why spend your time/money, and then complain about wasting it? Figure out something to appreciate. (Yeah, I know it's really hard for you, but still--give it a shot.) Everyone here (ok, not everyone) says they went to see The Mummy Returns knowing that they were in for "nothing heavy, just a good popcorn flick"....so ultimately, they weren't disappointed. Much, at least. Well, why put so much weight on the movies? Sure, they may be important to us, but are they that important?

Look--I love movies--movies and film music are my passion. But everytime I plunk down $7 bucks to see a movie, I know I'm paying to spend 2 hours of my life looking at someone else's story. What does it profit me to walk out and rant and rave about it like someone conned me out of my money? I picked the movie--I put down the money. (Not sneaking in and out of showings in progress like some folks like to boast about.) If, ultimately, I don't like the movie--fine--move on. The last worthless movie I saw was The Craft. Well, boo-hoo. Move on. I've learned I don't like that film-formula. Pick more carefully next time.

Another arguement is something like: Pearl Harbor is trying to be something it's not. (i.e., an "oscar-calibre" film.) Well--if all films attempted to be oscar-calibre, do you think we'd have better films, or worse films? (And how the hell do we know what "oscar-calibre" is anyway?)

Anyway--I'm not saying don't be critical. Be critical, if it suits you...but 1) try and be useful about it (even if you don't think it'll make that great of a difference) and 2) don't write-off folks who have a different perspective than you. (Even if they are in the minority.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancelot:
Well, why put so much weight on the movies? Sure, they may be important to us, but are they that important?

---

Only as important as any one person makes them. Which I believe was your point.

quote:

---

...everytime I plunk down $7 bucks to see a movie, I know I'm paying to spend 2 hours of my life looking at someone else's story...

---

But aren't the great movies the ones that connect with us personally... in effect, the ones that in some way mirror our story? The best movies belong to us in a very personal way... they speak to us on a level only we (individually) can fully appreciate.

They aren't all someone else's stories. The best ones are everyone's story.

(Sorry if all the italics are getting a little irritating... just trying to inflect dead text here...)

On some levels they're equal--on some, radically different.

Now, if we can understand that by charging the population at large $7 (avg.) a ticket, there's no great conspiracy to rip us off, the rest probably has to figure into advertising. If the ads/previews got us to buy the ticket, then we're the suckers, right?

I remember seeing an ad for The English Patient that likened it more to a Casablanca-ish war story with action and ill-fated romance. Little did I know I was in for three hours of sand.....

Ok, ok...so Minghella had good cinematography, and a tragic, time-shifting plot. Interesting, if self-serving characters. Still--wasn't it a little dry on the action? I bought the ticket. I could...no--Could I make the case for "false advertising"...selling it as something it's not? No--probably not. Everything in the ad was in the movie. Not in the same order, and all edited together really fast to make it look "cool"....but still, they got me. Now, the question is: Do I bitch about it, or do I find something to take with me....?

Yeah, I even bought the soundtrack. <shrug> We are none of us perfect.

And don't get me wrong, either...(just to be understood)...Sure, as you may discern, I enjoy a fast-paced war story, snappy editing (on occasion), and something that "moves". I also enjoy the slower, (some say "art house") type films--as long I see them coming. Sometimes, they get by.

Ever see "Wind"? I guess that one went mainstream for about 2 whole weeks when it came out....what a fantastic movie. The film itself is slower than molasses. The plot? Ehh...negotiable. Simplistic, perhaps, even. Cinematography is amazing. Score was terrific too. But it really inserts the viewer into that "world".
(My opinion, of course.)