quote:

---

Originally posted by John Zimmer:
When are they going to announce the Awards?

---

The ceremony is broadcast on Sunday, March 24, on ABC beginning at 5:30 p.m. PST.

Of all the nominees, James Horner is the most deserving of a win.

Of course, the two finest, most well-reasoned scores of last calendar year [that I heard]--The Last Castle and Atlantis--weren't even nominated....

The best present would be to watch a certain Canadian composer, and a certain NZ director collect!

There are times when Hollywood loves to be on the public's side...and this year I think the clamor would be for Fellowship. I think its easier to mimic reality than to create a fantasy world that viewers can fall so readily into. That is one of the reasons most people can ignore the films minor faults. (Except some of the jaded folks round these parts...)

As far as the score goes, I have never been a fan of the notion that a composer should win because they have never won before. Shore should win on merit. His score was fresh and complex, while serving the movie. My only hope is that if it LOTR's night that the score category doesn't fall victim to a token award to satisfy the other nominees.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aaron R. Brown:
I think that this might be Williams' year. The first time this happened was in 1979.

---

Actually.... no.

John Williams' double SCORE nominations (not counting song nominations):

1969 - The Reivers / Goodbye, Mr. Chips
1972 - Images / The Poseidon Adventure
1973 - Cinderella Liberty / Tom Sawyer
1977 - Star Wars / Close Encounters of the Third Kind
1984 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom / The River
1988 - Empire of the Sun / The Witches of Eastwick
1989 - Born on the Fourth of July / Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
1995 - Sabrina / Nixon
2001 - AI / Harry Potter

Not too shabby!
Dan

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
It still amazes me that Temple of Doom and Last Crusade were nominated and Raiders was not...scary...

---

Umm.. no, Williams got an Oscar nomination for RAIDERS... he lost to Vangelis for CHARIOTS OF FIRE.

The reason it wasn't in my list above was because Williams didn't get TWO score nominations that year.....

Dan

Not only was it a waste of $4 for the rental and 3 hours of my life, the score was a piece of crap too.

The movie tried to be two things and didn't accomplish either one. The score didn't try to accomplish anything, and it was a blah-ish steaming pile -- very worthy of the film it was composed for. A sad waste of over $150 million dollars, that's for sure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Criss:

Two lames score?... Well, for me is not the Academy members whom knows nothing about music...

The Catman

---

Well, I presume if I understand something about music, as my ex-best-friend-turned-foe The Ratman "undesrtand", I would be a has-been lame drummer on some garage-pop-cover band or maybe a loser balconist of a bankrupt dirty music instrument's store...

And, of course, I would have huge rancor against Howard Shore's outstanding FOTR!

quote:

---

There's also a lot of John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, James Horner andHans Zimmer in it, but that's another subject...

---

... one can only laugh!

I mean... James Horner??? HANZIMMER????

Muaaahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!

Thanks pal, I needed it...

I acctually really like LOTR too though.

The "folk" music works perfectly in the film...you're reaching there. Find me a quote of Zimmer or Horner...or even a moment where the styles even remotely overlap and then we'll talk.

You want pretentios, goofy music...go listen to Harry Potter. Minimizing our opinions of Fellowship because we underestimated Shore's abilities is disturbing. It's in the same realm as saying people have trained themselves to love William's work..support of the truly lackluster A.I. suggests that might be so.

quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonathan_little:
I'm surprised at the amout of groaning regarding Pearl Harbor's lack of a nomination for score. I rented that movie over the weekend to see what all the hype was about.
Not only was it a waste of $4 for the rental and 3 hours of my life, the score was a piece of crap too.

The movie tried to be two things and didn't accomplish either one. The score didn't try to accomplish anything, and it was a blah-ish steaming pile -- very worthy of the film it was composed for. A sad waste of over $150 million dollars, that's for sure.

---

I rented it two weeks ago.
Amen to your thoughts. They're mine aswell.

I haven't heard 'A Beautiful Mind' score yet, but if it's like Horner's efforts for
the last 15 years then it sounds like everything else he's ever written, which leads me to believe the only reason he is being nominated is because "he's the guy that wrote the Titanic soundtrack".

Like 100+ other people out there, I hope Howard Shore wins. Considering the amount of material he wrote for the film and the quality of it, he deserves the win.

I for one am glad to see 'Amelie' get nominated for 5 Awards. It's hands down the best film I've seen in ages, but while some of the categories it's in, the Oscar should maybe go to one of the other nominated films, I would really like to see it win for Screenplay written directly for the screen.

And does anyone know why we only ever seem to get two nominees for best sound editing?
Maybe I'm wrong, but remember there being only two nominees for the last few years.
What gives?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Criss:
Just because I didn´t like LOTR.Ahahaha!
Get lost.

---

Not at all! In fact I would get surprised if Rogério Ferreira actually liked FOTR. We all know it's not the kind of movie he can dig.

Besides, I didn't offend he.
Just said the truth.
Does it hurt that much??
Well, I am sorry for that then, the poor fella...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hector J. Guzman:
You're right!! That is funny. It's funny 'cause it's true! Hahahaha!!!! And what's even funnier is the folk music from The Lord of the Rings. Oh wait no, that's not funny, it's painfully annoying AND [b]lame. [/B]

---

One must love when these fanboys get hysterical...

Anyway, I am sorry he wasn't able to like Shore's great FOTR. But he is in "good" company with the few others who also wasn't able, as we can notice on this very thread!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Criss:
[b]Maybe for the "intelectual" or something may it be a great movie.

---

Yes, we all know he is not an intellectual, the Pernilongo-man. Anyway, I must thank him for the compliment. And I tought he hated me because of all the envy he feels!

As for "being a man", if that means to cheat my wife with any single doped groupie that wants to get laid with me just because I play drums on some garage band, then I am afraid I am not one...

And, again, sorry if I offened him. I only said the truth, but I didn't know he still is living in those terrible condition! Poor soul...

Now, lets just continuing ignoring him as usual...

In 1972: yes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoreguy16:
I just realized something... I haven't heard any of the nominated scores! Well, I've heard bits and pieces, but not a lot! Which should I get? Or should I get all?

Clayton

---

Clayton,

I would recommend you get A.I. and LOTR to start with. A.I. contains some of Williams most haunting and touching music he's written. LOTR, while not the typical bombastic fantasy score is an oustanding effort from Shore. It fits the film nicely.

Harry Potter is a good solid Williams score but I was suprised it got a nomination. Haven't heard Monsters Inc. away from the film, but it sounds like a typical Newman score.

As for a Beautiful Mind, I'm sure you've heard it before in any one of Horner's previous efforts.

As for POTTER, I just bought the album (very cheap) and yes, it's quite awful. There are two or three listeneable cues, but the rest is almost unbearable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bulldog:
I just found the answer to my own question, from Fred Karlin's Listening to Movies.

In 1972: yes.

In 1969 and 1973: no.

---

You're both wrong. Dan is going by the release year of the nominated scores, not the year in which they were actually nominated. I'm not sure where you're coming from, Bulldog... he was nominated for two 1972 films, but he only had one nomination at the 1972 ceremony.

Take a look...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bulldog:
I just found the answer to my own question, from Fred Karlin's Listening to Movies.

In 1972: yes.

In 1969 and 1973: no.

---

Check it out yerself.

I just say that if the nitwits in Hollywood nominate HARRY POTTER for best score, then the same nitwits SHOULD have nominated also THE MUMMY RETURNS - Alan Silvestri definitely would deserve his statuette.

...It seems that the nitwits want to nominate the same composers every year - (AAAARRRRRRGHH, wake up Hollywood !!!!) - that's why the appearance of Howard Shore is quite a pleasant sight for my sore eyes, although I still don't like LOTR score on its own.

But the thing I'm most furious about is that Baz Luhrmann wasn't nominated for his directing on MOULIN ROUGE - and that Ewan McGregor was also cut from MR nominations; anyone who has seen MR should know that Nicole Kidman couldn't have given such a splendid performance without her strong co-star. (But the Academy nitwits did the same obscure thing on TITANIC and SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, nominating only the actresses).

Other thing is that the Academy should give a Special Award for MOULIN ROUGE's music supervision & production - if a film like TOTAL RECALL got a Special Award for its effects some ten years ago, then it's totally absurd that a music project so vast and incredibly well done (as MR is) doesn't get any award.

The only thing that made me happy was Jennifer Connelly's nomination

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hector J. Guzman:
Shore's score is too thin in many parts, that sort of folk music is silly and pretentious, it's annoying; the choral work is nice but we have already heard it before. [...] And what's even funnier is the folk music from The Lord of the Rings. Oh wait no, that's not funny, it's painfully annoying AND [b]lame. Also annoying and lame is the sort of fanfare that sounds like Zimmer, man that's awful.[/B]

---

Uhm...wait a moment. Whether you like the score or not is one thing (personally, I'd say it's inferior to Potter in terms of "pure" music, but better as a film score). I don't see where the fanfare sounds like Zimmer, and even if it does: The main reason for people to dislike Zimmer is that he replaces real instruments with synths without a special reason, and that his writing isn't complex. Neither applies to Shore. (Calling Zimmer the Bach of our time is a bit confusing; Bach wrote lots of fugues, somehow I doubt Zimmer could write one).

*don't hurt me*

I'm REALLY surprised that such a poetic and emotional person (as you are) regards MOULIN ROUGE only as a "music video".

The trick was that I initially expected MR to be just the "music video" you described - I went to see it very reluctantly - and found out that the movie contained every bit of most perfect emotional storytelling style. It's a real pity if you haven't been able to discover the ENORMOUS emotion within MOULIN ROUGE. Every bit of the movie simply shows that its director has given his heart into the project - and such things have been rewarded in the past by the Academy, so it's a big wonder why they ignored Luhrmann on this Directing category.

... I have many years believed, and this year only makes me to believe even more, that the Academy just WON'T nominate the MOST LIKELY WINNERS (- and yet they nominate John Williams almost every year...)