quote:

---

Originally posted by rkeaveney:
Howard Shore's RETURN OF THE KING won a Chicago Film Critic's Award for 'Best Original Score'. It's unstoppable!

Ryan

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HadrianD:

I can't wait until Oscar night to see King not win Best Original Score.

---

I SOOO second that!

[Message edited by Justin on 01-22-2004]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:
AMEN to that. Most overrated score of all time. Please bring the day this score is not talked about

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marian Schedenig:
And I don't hear any rehashing of LOTR/TTT in ROTK... there's more of that in ROTJ, if you ask me.

---

Now, now, you can't say "any" because there is some, but you're right on the basic point: there is more recycling in ROTJ than in ROTK. Sheesh, abbreviations

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scorro:
I only wish there was a 4th LOTR score for him to write.

---

There could have been had they done The Hobbit. I still they should have.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinko:

There could have been had they done The Hobbit. I still they should have.

---

They could have been done better, but that would have required stretching the movies to probably six instalments.

Given that it might have been excessive to do that, I think that the movies were some of the finest film-making in history, and as I said, I think they're the very best adaptation of a book into a movie ever made.

So, in order from my favorite to my least favorite:

The Two Towers
Fellowship of the Ring
Return of the King

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoreguy16:
As for making another film, I pray they don't because I am sick of everyone thinking these films are the greatest thing ever because they're not. They're very very extremely far from it.

---

Well... I don't think not making another film will cause people to enjoy the current ones any less. In fact, you are more likely to see a backlash against Tolkien adaptations if they try to make another one and completely stuff it up, which given their track record is unlikely.

I have been watching films for over 30 years and have studied film history and I have to tell you that there are very few events that even come close to LOTR in terms of film and importance. You have been lucky enough to witness one of the more important events in film history, even if you couldn’t enjoy it. In some ways, you’re like those who just couldn’t see why everybody was standing in line to see Star Wars in 1977. Here are a few “events” that LOTR shares the throne with:

Star Wars – The original trilogy changed the way movies are made a set a new benchmark in film making.

1939 – THE YEAR of Hollywood’s golden age. There were better films to come and better performances, but this was a year of synergy that hasn’t come again and probably a few others. Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz. Beau Geste, Dodge City, Stagecoach, Dark Victory, Each Dawn I Die, The Four Feathers, Goodbye Mr. Chips, Gunga Din, The Little Princess, well you get the idea.

Sound of Music – Single handedly saved 20th Century fox from the box office disaster that was Cleopatra and breathed live into the dying art form that was the Hollywood musical. It is a film that ran in it’s opening release for over 4 years in its initial release.

There are others, but that gives you an idea of the kind of thing that it’s competing with in terms of “event”. The wonder is that it succeeded.

Here’s why I consider it in this class. Here is a film that most people who were in the business couldn’t be made. “It’s too long, there’s too much detail, the story structure is flawed, there are too many fans who will feel betrayed by whatever is done, the estate is pain to work with, etc.” Peter Jackson got a Hollywood, main line studio to front him the cash for a projected 9 hour long film to be released in three parts. Further he shot all the principal photography in a year long shoot and spent the next two years doing second unit work and re-shooting and reworking the film. He created and formed a cast that actually seemed to be more than the sum of its parts. He overcame the massive technical problems and technological restraints to produce the film.

The incredible thing is that in all that tedious, detail oriented work he never lost sight of the story and what he was trying to do. Sure, there are choices he made that I would have done differently, but he got the story made and it’s a great story and a great film.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MWRuger:

Maybe you don’t like it, but you can’t argue that it wasn’t massively successful and that part of what made it so was the score and what it brought to the picture. Perhaps what they are rewarding when the praise Return of the King is the entire trilogy. If so, it is praise well earned.

---

I'm not trying to argue that it wasn't massively successful. Like I said before it is an amazing achievement. But I just don't think these films are nearly as good as almost everyone makes them out to be. People act like these are the perfect films when no matter how you cut it there are things wrong with them. And by things wrong I mean with anything. It might be editing, continuity errors, anything like that, there will always be something wrong with every single film (that has nothing to do with my personal taste or anything, that just has to do with filmmaking itself). So as far as Peter Jackson taking a risk on something like this, that's deffinately admirable. However, I just don't think these are the greatest films ever made like almost everyone makes them out to be. If you want to be ignorant and say something like "It's cuz he likes crappy Bruckheimer/Bay MTV movies with scores by MV, Hans Zimmer, or BT" or whatever, go ahead. But that has nothing to do with it. As I said before, I like practically every film I see. The achievement is amazing, I'm not saying it isn't, but the films themselves just don't seem as good as almost everyone says they are.

They're better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoreguy16:
But Franz, what if this next installment was sooooo bad, it ruined the entire LOTR series?! Then what enjoyment would that 2% have?

---

LOL, you've got me there!

What a monumental, unbelievable task for any composer. Love it or hate it, I truly
admire what Shore accomplished. And I can’t remember when the last time was
that board members spent so much time dissecting tracks into themes, motifs, and
leitmotifs. You can’t analyze wallpaper. I’ve only seen this done with some
of Williams’ works and a few compositions like Shire’s Return to Oz, but it has
been a while, a long while.

Now I wonder if Shore’s type of melodic and heraldic scoring will the genesis for the
return to this type of scoring as did Star Wars reintroduce a more romantic sound.
Kind of hope so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HadrianD:
Clay is entitled to his opinion that the trilogy wasn't that significant to him.

People,leave Clay alone.

---

No one is saying he isn't entitled to his view. By the same token, we are entitled to ours. He wants to express how undeserving he feels LOTR-ROTK is and some of us disagree. Simple as that.

He doesn't need defending unless you think he isn't capable of carrying on an adult conversation and defending his view. When you defend him unnecessarily it reinforces the view that he can't do it himself and that he is just a kid. A view I am sure he would vehemently would disagree with.

Love or hate the music, I think it is obvious that Shore's music absolutely succeeds in drawing out the passion and meanings of nearly every scene.

Think...

The moth's flight in Fellowship
Emerging from Moria in Fellowship
Gandalf and Eomer's charge in Two Towers
The last charge of the Ents in Two Towers
Gandalf's ride through Minas Tirith in ROTK (yes--I know you don't like the theme)
Swelling of the "Into the West" theme as Sam carries Frodo up Mount Doom
The ominious chorus as Frodo slips on the ring.....