I've been trying for a while to find a good compare and contrast between 60's scoring and current scoring. So next time BULLITT runs on AMC, give it a chance and pay attention to both the music and the placement of the music. Then do the same thing with The Rock.

This isn't a rag on either composer because they have to give the guys writing the paycheck what they want, but for me, I prefer the BULLITT approach. I think preferences may depend on what you grew up with.

My parents got a lot of grief for taking me at age 9 to see GOLDFINGER. "It will corrupt him, he'll want loose women, alcohol, be violent and drive fast cars." Well they were right about the fast cars since a quick silver car sits in my driveway. But, the only other vice I picked up, was my passion for film music.

As to Bullitt vs. The Rock, as I am sure many people on the board know, I am a "The Rock" fanatic. (I know, I know, I am a fanatic in other ways too. But that's another story). I actually enjoy both approaches. The raw power from the car engine in Bullitt is great, but at the same time, Zimmer's score for The Rock adds a great deal of energy to the scene. It kinda depends on the intended effect on the filmmaker. I think the Bullitt approach is more "real", while "The Rock" approach is more dramatic.

Ed

Most people seem to think that Zimmer wrote thise score, he did not. Zimmer only wrote two themes, the main theme and the principle action theme, both of which are highlighted in "Hummel Gets the Rockets." Whether you like Zimmer or not, it's easier to sell CDs with his name on it rather than Nick Glennie-Smith's or Harry Gregson-Williams', since both were relatively unknown at the time.

I'm not certain exactly what it is with those people, either, otten. Although, I can tell you that if you claim to like Michael Bay, they will use it to discredit any other opinion you have. Bay may be moving a little faster than most of us, and that probably suits him fine, based on what I've read in his interviews. Others want to hold it against him personally. Again, there's no comment, because it is concieveable that one can be talented and an arrogant ass at the same time.

Bay's movies--they do make sense, visually. To me, at least. People want to discredit them because they may seem either commercial or jingoistic, and some minds out there don't like anything that even hints of that. Perhaps they prefer their cinema bleak and independent--or perhaps they don't care to see Bay succeed more commercially, while other equally hard-working directors go unheralded?

I believe that they would find anything to complain about if it came from Jerry Bruckheimer--perhaps something that smacks too much of trying to entertain a wide audience.

Bay applies a unique style to his films, and people that don't know it better will claim that it's just a "bunch of explosions and slow motion shots edited together at the speed of light"--but I think he really has a no-nonsense approach to filmmaking, which is why he can work with actors like Sean Connery and Ed Harris and Bruce Willis. (But this depends on how much esteem you afford them, as actors.)

Praise Bay and they will come for you. We argue the point, because, to us, it is important to express the obverse, unpopular (sometimes overwhelmingly so) as it may be. We want to see more Bay films, we hope that he continues to make them, and that this unconstructive negativity is generally unheeded. It's one of those things where doing your best to ignore the negative bullsh*t on the whole, and just enjoying the movie is the best that can come of it.

Geesh dude, can YOU be anymore INTOLERANT of other people whose opinion differs from you?

To go to a Bay/Bruckheimer movie is to expect fluff, chases, explosions, fast cuts, etc. You won't find anything "deep" in one of their movies. It's all visual.

Now, with this next part I'm not trying to nmake a direct comparison, but bear with me...

Bay suffers from a bias (and I'm not talking baout the movies right now) because he is a "music-video director" and not a "real" director (and he aligned himself with the ultimate fluff producer in Bruckheimer). So consequently he isn't garndering the respect of the "legitimate" film community. Does this sound familiar in the film score world? Think Danny Elfman.

It took a long while (and still hasn't completely gone away) for the "established Hollywood machine" to recognize Elfman as something more than a "rock star who dabbles in film music." Of course, he still has his detractors to this day, but they are fewer and far between the more he "proves" that he can do film scoring "seriously."

This is Bay's problem (I think). He needs to get away from Bruckheimer and the fluff, and do something meaningful and worthwhile; something "deep and thought-provoking." Perhaps then he will begin to be taken "seriously" by Hollywood. As long as he's not willing to take a chance, he won't be taken seriously.

And as for working with actors, why woudn't they work with him? They get paid their enormous amounts of money, and they are pretty much guaranteed that the movie will be popular with the "target demographic." Heck, if I did a bunch of "serious" movies, and then had a chance to work in what is probably going to be a good moneymaker, I'd take Bay/Bruckheimer's millions and do it. Why not?

And by the way, "hack" basically means a mediocre and disdained person; By, characteristic of, or designating routine or commercial writing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin:
To go to a Bay/Bruckheimer movie is to expect fluff, chases, explosions, fast cuts, etc.

---

No, it isn't. Ever since I know what to expect from them, I *don't* go to their movies.