I didn't expect anything and I didn't get anything. RETURN OF THE KING was only lousy, noisy and boring - with the exception of the lovable spider and the "army of wraiths".

But once more, and more than anything else, I noticed too many times that the so-called music was just orchestral chaos and nothing more. So many times I was hoping that someone like David Shire would come to the rescue with his incredibly melodic action music from RETURN TO OZ - but no, not a chance; I understand it quite perfectly that Jackson and Shore wanted to keep the movie and the music as realistic as possible - but where is the point to kill a pure fantasy with too much realism?

Furthermore, I noticed also that too much of the music was buried underneath an avalanche of sound effects. Once again I started thinking about the fantasy movies of the past where MUSIC had the leading role even in the action scenes where sound effects rumbled - RETURN TO OZ being, once again, a terrific example.

I do admit that the theme, which opens RETURN OF THE KING, is quite beautiful with an elegant melody (what theme is this?) - but it was really the only good piece of MUSIC I heard in the movie.

Let the stones fly!

No stones, though. I can just go see RETURN OF THE KING again and wrap myself up in everything you're missing out on.

Here's a toast to differing opinions.

Nicely stated, Kirk. Very nice. Different strokes and all that.

While I'm not sure if that made any sense... in other news the piece of music you're wondering about would be one of the following:

KER-SPLATT!

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
I love reviews like this! They make me wonder whether these films are any good at all, which makes their goodness that much more realistic once I've reminded myself that they actually aren't as bad as reviews like this say they are.... While I'm not sure if that made any sense...

---

Oh, I'm flattered
- simply because my initial post wasn't a review AT ALL. I usually put much more effort to reviews - but with ROTK, why bother? (since nearly everyone seem to be brainwashed with this movie trilogy).

quote:

---

in other news the piece of music you're wondering about would be---
1. The History of the Ring theme - This plays in a waltz-like form over the 'Lord of the Rings' title.

---

This was exactly what I liked. (Well, I have always been crazy about waltzes in any form). Can someone tell me does any of the soundtrack albums include a full "album version" of this beautiful theme?

Many people will undoubtedly wonder why I'm so against this trilogy. A good reason: I'm so sick and full with all this brainless ACTION!ACTION!ACTION! in mainstream Hollywood movies (DAY AFTER TOMORROW will top this unbelievably stupid trend in movies). I do admit that technically these LOTR movies, including the fights, are splendid - but I'm truly concerned about the brainwashing quality in this never-ending fight montage that LOTR movie trilogy basically is. Yes, there is a good message underneath, but the message in the Trilogy could be delivered with far less fighting and more with something else. (For one thing, I was really upset that Jackson gave so much time for all this fighting and omitted Christopher Lee completely away from the movie).

No movie will ever be better than the book on which the movie is based on. That is why I really believe that Jackson's initial idea to do just two movies would have been a better idea than doing these three movies. The entire LOTR story, in cinematic terms, could have been wrapped up nicely in 6+ hours - and in this form the LOTR story could have been much more approachable for people like me who haven't read the original books.

The LOTR trilogy music - yep, it's grand, it's epic, but especially with the battle scenes it is just the same noisy wallpaper which is pasted to all mainstream action movies nowadays. The world has changed and even movie music reflects its own time - shallow, so shallow.

A lot of love and integrity has gone into the making of these films and it shows.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timmer:
To suggest that anyone is "brainwashed" by these movies is very patronising to those people (myself included) who have enjoyed this trilogy, are you honestly suggesting that LOTR 1,2 & 3 is in the same brainless category as any noisy Bruckbummer movie?

A lot of love and integrity has gone into the making of these films and it shows.

Peter Jackson for best director Oscar!

---

Being brainwashed and enjoying an entertaining "noisy Bruckbummer movie" have nothing in common. I agree Ken S here about people being brainwashed when it comes to LOTR.

Clayton

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hasta:
Bruckheimer movies suck and if you like them you suck too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hasta:
Bruckheimer movies suck and if you like them you suck too.

---

Wow. I must suck really bad then. I mean, I am deffinately going to listen to what some person on a message board says.

Anyway, lets keep on topic about Return of the King. I believe there's enough posts bashing Bruckheimer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hasta:
Bruckheimer movies suck and if you like them you suck too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timmer:
are you honestly suggesting that LOTR 1,2 & 3 is in the same brainless category as any noisy Bruckbummer movie?

---

Well, as far as the battles and fight scenes are concerned, YES I DO.

Someone who knows the original LOTR books by heart, please answer this: Are the fights and battles described as closely and at such length in the books as in these movies? If not, then you might understand my point of view. (And if the descriptions were as close and long in the books as in these movies - well, then these books were where all the crap producers have learnt to make action movies).

quote:

---

A lot of love and integrity has gone into the making of these films and it shows. Peter Jackson for best director Oscar!

---

In TECHNICAL terms, yes. I do agree that Peter Jackson earns his Oscar, although I didn't enjoy these films.

With as big passion as he had for LOTR trilogy, Peter Jackson could be the right person to film the ultimate screen version of Bram Stoker's DRACULA, if he just would remember the importance of human warmth in the Dracula story.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scoreguy16:
What's wrong with brainless movies? As long as their entertaining it doesn't matter. If you guys don't find them entertaining that's fine, I am just happy I can find pleasure in what you guys miss out on.

---

While the definition of a "brainless" movie is quite vague, I feel the need to say here that my taste in movies is very broad. I enjoy many genres, from Jackson's earlier "b" works to Danny Boyle's macabre stuff (SHALLOW GRAVE, TRAINSPOTTING) and such silly sugar-coated fantasy stuff as TITANIC and MOULIN ROUGE. I enjoyed the Universal remake of THE MUMMY (1999) while I hated its sequel MUMMY RETURNS which was in my opinion a completely "brainless" movie (= totally wasted script, wasted actors, just FX topping FX without any reason to do so).

It's just that in the movies that I like, the emotions and message are usually EXTREME in a warm, humane way (and a little tongue-in-cheek never fails). I understand that it may sound strange to some of you who hold the Tolkien books close to your heart, but I can't find enough humane warmth or witty message in Jackson's LOTR trilogy (the same thing with Chris Columbus' dreadful HARRY POTTER movies). Sam and Gandalf are the only warm & humane characters while the rest of the LOTR trilogy is so ...empty.

But naturally, as Kirk has already said, differing opinions are a wealth and not a curse.

KEN

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken S:
This was exactly what I liked. (Well, I have always been crazy about waltzes in any form). Can someone tell me does any of the soundtrack albums include a full "album version" of this beautiful theme?
KEN

---

Yes... the three albums each have a version of it.

FOTR: 'The Great River' probably has the most epic statement of the theme.

TTT: 'Foundations of Stone' contains a statement of the theme, as does 'The Leavetaking'.

ROTK: The waltz-like version you're looking for can be heard in 'A Storm is Coming'. In fact in that track, you'll hear it twice, though the second statement of the theme didn't appear in the film. The theme is also stated briefly in 'The End of All Things'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoreguy16:
I was thinking "brainless" in the sense of like stuff blowing up and people chasing people for no apparent reason.

---

Pretty brainless, yes!
The first ones I can think of: the remake of THE HAUNTING, and THE CUTTHROAT ISLAND (and pretty much everything else from Renny Harlin).

quote:

---

THE MUMMY RETURNS --- It was kind of a different style, it seemed like it was trying to be too serious where as the first one was just plain fun.

---

Well, actually I thought the first one (THE MUMMY, 1999) was also genuinely SCARY, while the second one (THE MUMMY RETURNS) was completely "softened-down" for younger audience. But with the rest of the stuff, I agree with you, Clayton. If not with the earlier stuff, THE MUMMY RETURNS was ultimately destroyed with the totally ridiculous "dramatic" ending ...["weep, weep - Evy, don't die!"]

KEN

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
This thread is becoming a bit dangerous to hang around - the wrath of fanboys has been stirred...

---

Actually that was exactly what I was trying to do! I am Saruman the great!

KEN

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken S:
Actually that was exactly what I was trying to do! I am Saruman the great!
KEN

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoreguy16:
I believe there's enough posts bashing Bruckheimer.

---

In a perfect world, there's never enough posts bashing Bruckheimer.

.
.
.
.
.
.

There is so much emotion and human feeling in the LOTR films that Ken must TRULY be dragging his body when he goes to see them. And having dragged himself into the theater, he must have little energy left to absorb what's actually happening on the screen.

I think the critics and public, alike, have acclaimed this film quite rightly. I do feel sorry for those who feel left out in the cold and don't get what the rest of us do.

They must feel like howling at everything.

Don't worry about not liking Shore's music, Ken...you just need a little steering toward the right kind of music for you:

By all means, rush out and buy "John Tesh's Greatest Hits" -- I'm sure you will find it more to your liking and a better fit for your tastes.

Respectfully,

R

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Pulliam:
It never ceases to amaze me at the lengths a handful of folks will go to trying to convince everyone else that they're wrong in loving a film. There is so much emotion and human feeling in the LOTR films that Ken must TRULY be dragging his body when he goes to see them.

---

The pot calling the kettle...

quote:

---

And having dragged himself into the theater, he must have little energy left to absorb what's actually happening on the screen.

---

Truthfully, when I like a movie, it fills me with energy. ROTK was a total opposite: IT absorbed all energy FROM ME by its neverending battles and by its ridiculous running time - and here, Ron you're right - after that I didn't have any energy left to absorb the so-called "emotion" of the movie.

quote:

---

I do feel sorry for those who feel left out in the cold and don't get what the rest of us do.

---

Rest of us..? Talking about brainwashing.

quote:

---

Don't worry about not liking Shore's music, Ken...you just need a little steering toward the right kind of music for you

---

Thanks, but I don't need any steering toward the "right kind" of music for myself - I'm capable of discovering DIFFERENT KINDS of music all by myself (for example, the exciting period last summer when I noticed how great music Jean Sibelius has written). I don't label my favorite music as the "right kind" since there are so many styles I like. I am totally happy with the amount of music, composers and artists I've found during these nearly twenty years of my almost 30-year life.

But with Shore's LOTR trilogy music I'm afraid I won't never understand it. Today I gave a good listen to Shore's FOTR score, but still I just don't "get it" with this action and suspense music: For my tastes the chorus sections are simply too darn loud, too "classical", and they are used too often... A smaller dose would be much more effective.

And before anyone thinks I don't like grand choral stuff, let me say that I really enjoy Jerry Goldsmith's OMEN trilogy scores among other things. It's just that the balance of the orchestra and the chorus seems to be so beautifully harmonious on these terrific Goldsmith scores. Especially when compared to those, Shore's LOTR suspense & action music seem only ridiculous by being so artificial.

I DO ADMIT that there is some beautiful - and melodic - music on Shore's LOTR trilogy scores, but the overall style, for my tastes, is too close to classical music - too "Artistic" music - which I have never liked.

quote:

---

By all means, rush out and buy "John Tesh's Greatest Hits" -- I'm sure you will find it more to your liking and a better fit for your tastes.

---

A search through Google gave me the impression that John Tesh's - (never heard of him before) - music is religious..?

****************

About the LOTR trilogy, I would still like to know if the fights and battles were described in the original Tolkien books as closely and at such length as in these movies?

KEN

I must admit there are times when I find you completely incomprehensible. And I'm not talking about your English, which aside from the occassional double-negative is just as good (in some cases better) than anyone who has grown up speaking it. You like your music visceral and honest, yet you often seem disinterested in music that really tries to stir the depths of the soul. At least, you seem disinterested in music that really stirs the depths of my soul. I don't know what that means, except that we can't be soulmates.

I have a question for you, though. Do you think it is any less pretentious for someone like you to avoid music of "artistic" intentions than for someone who likes "artistic" music to avoid something you like because they deem it of lesser value? Obviously, you will like what you will like, and if your tastes are opposed to something you shouldn't force yourself to like it. But I'm simply talking about expectations...is it possible (whether you intend it or not) that you're not giving Shore's scores a chance simply because you have preconceptions about their association with "artistic" music, and as such (again, perhaps unintentionally) you won't let them affect you on the emotional level they're intended to?

(By the way, I only continue to put quotation marks around the word "artistic" because it is the word you used...franky, I myself don't know of any music that is not artistic.)

Since no one else has answered your question yet, I'll make a try at it, though it's been quite some time since I've read the books. No, I don't remember Tolkien describing the battles in quite as much detail as they are portrayed on screen. Certain moments of the battles, the very important moments, do stand out however...Eowyn's confrontation with the Witch King or the arrival of the Rohirrim, for example. But maybe there was a lot more detail I'm not remembering...as I said, it's been quite some time since I read them. In fact, there was one character in particular who I thought I remembered dying in the book, and I felt very embarrassed and stupid when I remarked to someone else how drastic a change it was to have them live on in the film.

Kirk
NP - Harlem Air Shaft (Duke Ellington)

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
(By the way, I only continue to put quotation marks around the word "artistic" because it is the word you used...franky, I myself don't know of any music that is not artistic.)

---

Your remark on my English is completely justified. I have been earlier misunderstood and misinterpret and the reason must be the gab between two different cultures and languages you and I represent - not forgetting the occasional age difference which, I've noticed, has been surprisingly many times the reason of me being misinterpret and misunderstood. Most often it is also an issue about integrity - I do admit that I don't respect the opinions of unidentified people as much as those people who reveal their true identity on the internet (as I do). Although the latter sounds like I would be a tyrant being only interested hearing my own voice, I'm really not like that - more than anything else, I'm ALWAYS interested in learning other people's thoughts.

Of my initial post on this thread, I do admit that I wrote it mainly as an attempt to poke at the anthill - to create a conversation. Usually when I don't understand something, I deliberately "poke at the anthill" to get people explaining their view on the subject. I know I shouldn't start conversations in this way - but usually it works.

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
You like your music visceral and honest, yet you often seem disinterested in music that really tries to stir the depths of the soul.

---

"Visceral" was a new word for me. But yes, quite usually the music I like can be felt deep in the guts and the pit of the stomach.

But seriously.
We have concluded many times that the issue is differences in taste - and once more it's the only valid explanation.

Yet, however, IT BUGS MYSELF TOO that I'm so disinterested in this kind of music that Shore and Williams have created during the last years. And to be honest, Kirk, you hit the nail right on the head by suggesting that there is something deeply psychological in my "hatred" towards not only the music, but the entire "hype" for LOTR trilogy, HARRY POTTER movies, and new STAR WARS chapters.

quote:

---

But I'm simply talking about expectations...is it possible (whether you intend it or not) that you're not giving Shore's scores a chance simply because you have preconceptions about their association with "artistic" music, and as such (again, perhaps unintentionally) you won't let them affect you on the emotional level they're intended to?

---

Let me explain. (I only hope that my English is good enough, not to make me again "completely incomprehensible").

I have never followed the mainstream what comes to going to - and loving - the movies. In some way, yes it is all about preconceptions. But movies like TITANIC and MOULIN ROUGE! gave me the lesson of life: I have to be more tolerant towards these movies that "everyone goes to see". But what makes the difference is that I didn't like neither TITANIC nor MOULIN ROUGE! "just because everyone else loved them" - I liked them because both movies stirred and touched my own heart. Ditto with all other movies I like.

Now, HARRY POTTER, STAR WARS new chapters, and the LOTR trilogy were all movies which "everyone had to see". The mere hype around these movies made me sick - but still I wanted to give them a chance by seeing them myself. With HARRY POTTER, I admit, I had strong expectations - and everyone probably still remembers what was the resolution. With STAR WARS new chapters and LOTR I had no expectations - and yet these movies gave me absolutely nothing.

Included in that hype, all and everyone seems just to be praising the scores. It becomes the necessity to adore a music score just BECAUSE OF THE HYPE, and not because of the music alone. Just think: If Howard Shore had written a score like FOTR earlier, for example to DEAD RINGERS (or some other minor horror movie), the score might have gone unnoticed because the lack of promotion. In other words, it's all about money; about promotion; about hype. As movie music collectors we all know that a movie or score can cause a hype without actually being good.

I am NOT indicating here that the LOTR trilogy is "ALL BAD". I am just trying to explain here, that yes, I DO have some preconceptions about everything that is promoted with enormous hype - I really DO EXPECT something NEW and extraordinary to be delivered by such works, and with LOTR trilogy there wasn't anything like that in my opinion. I say it once again that the music and the movies of LOTR are not "bad to the bone" - the trilogy has been created with lot of passion - but in my opinion the trilogy with its music is nothing immensely new or groundbreaking.

quote:

---

Do you think it is any less pretentious for someone like you to avoid music of "artistic" intentions than for someone who likes "artistic" music to avoid something you like because they deem it of lesser value?

---

Um, I'm not sure if I understand your question, but here goes: I'm really NOT "avoiding" music of any kinds. It's just that I grew up listening to the magical 70's & 80's fantasy movie music and I can't help it that such style is where I find my soul. I would not speak of pretentiousness what comes to music tastes; in my high school years many of my more "Artistic" class mates considered Ennio Morricone and Vangelis as a Gods and John Williams as a devil, while I thought vice versa. These days I can listen to some Morricone and Vangelis works and others which I have previously considered as plain "Art" music - but still that kind of style just doesn't make my soul to soar.

So, in the end, it all comes again down to this: tastes and the differences in taste. That's why I would very much like to know WHAT EXACTLY does Shore's LOTR scores give to you who like the music?

KEN

It has always concerned me when people dismiss films due to hype or adoration by the masses. Do you find it merely a coincidence that you dislike nearly every film considered an "event" or a blockbuster by the media or movie going public? I have always said if you enter a film with preconceived notions, generally you will make those notions a reality.

The other possibility is that some folks refuse to allow themselves to enjoy films such as these, simply because they want to differentiate themselves from the mass movie-going public.

I'm not sure if either of these possibilities really apply to you Ken (neither is it any of my business). But be careful making broad, sweeping statements such as these...in my mind they do not lend weight to your arguments.

As for me...well, I love the scores and wish I had time to see the movie for a fourth time. Too bad...I will wait with giddy anticipation for the DVD release.

The pot calling the kettle...

I'm just using your OWN terminology from your original post.

I feel sorry for those who feel left out in the cold and don't get what the rest of us do.

Rest of us..? Talking about brainwashing.

Yeah...the rest of us -- ALL who disagree with you...the rest of us who made it the highest grossing film of 2003...the rest of us who profess we think it an instant classic.

What part of "the rest of us" didn't you comprehend?

I think you believe it clever to play with words -- anything, in fact, to avoid dealing with other opinions. .

I respect your right to have whatever opinion you hold. I apologize for being playful with your own word imagery.

I also apologize for mistaking this thread as a place to exchange ideas...it's clearly intended to be a hot air repository for the originator.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timmer:
you tease Franz, names must be named

---

I was complimenting your English, and I said it was not your English which made you incomprehensible. I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't making a dig at that.

In any case, you explain yourself quite well, and I have nothing more to say about that. It's nice to know you still think we're soulmates.

As for "WHAT EXACTLY" Shore's LOTR scores give me, I'll get back to you on that in a while when I have a little more time to give you a more detailed account.

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
I promised myself I wouldn't get caught up in this thread, but unfortunately there's too much music I know of that is not artistic.

---

Hey, I never said artistic automatically meant good! Context certainly has a lot to do with it too. But I guess you can chalk that up to the subjectiveness of its meaning (which was my point anyway).

And I think it is precisely because music is inescapably artistic that such stuff as that halftime show is so deplorable. Your opinion has mountains of value though...if I just saw it as artless I could probably ignore it more easily.

the fights in the movies are in the books. They aren't mindless.
And I think Peter Jackson did a superb job with the humanity of the [Tolkein] story he's telling. How can you NOT feel anything for Gollum? or Frodo? or Faramir?

As for the Shore scores, I think they're superb in every way. I love "ancient" modal sound Shore used.
I don't understand what people who dislike the scores would have wanted that was different.

Life is serious. Life is filled with unpleasant things, violence, despair, pain, et cetera. I don't know about you guys, but I don't usually need movies to CONVINCE ME that these unpleasant things ARE waiting outside the theatre. That's why I have never liked movies that gorge with violence or try to be "too" serious. In stead, when I go to movies, I usually want to be swept away and to be touched deeply in positive terms - in terms of "hope". I sincerely believe that most of us admit this too.

Of course, a movie has to be a dramatic wholeness - happy endings can't happen without powerful evil. I totally accept it, as I am a storyteller myself.

But there are limits. Too much sugar kills and too much violence can paralyze anyone. I have already explained that these LOTR fights really got "into" me, paralyzing me in such terms that I couldn't take the movie seriously: I was "just" watching a motion picture, and not "living it" (as I usually do). All the time I just kept wondering the conflict between the message and the movie; the LOTR trilogy clearly declares an anti-war message and yet the trilogy wallows CINEMATICALLY in the details of violence and fighting, and does this just because large audiences still want to see ACTION. Nobody can deny that the LOTR movie trilogy concentrates on the battles and action.

So, that's why Jackson's LOTR trilogy didn't convince me nor touch me. I honestly believe that a lesser amount of time spend on these fights and battle scenes would have sufficed - in that kind of form I could have taken this trilogy a little bit more seriously and let it touch me deeper, perhaps.

There is also another point: Movies based on books. I have already said that a movie hardly ever is better than the original book. In addition, in this kind of movie there's hardly ever any surprise elements - people already know what happens in the end. I haven't read the LOTR books, but I knew how the story develops and ends (because of the literary & art research that is basic element in my work). And in my case it would have been better if I HADN'T KNOWN the story - because in all of these LOTR movies, due to these long fight sequences, I've ended up just waiting the story MOVE FORWARD.

I hope I've been able to explain myself properly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
Do you find it merely a coincidence that you dislike nearly every film considered an "event" or a blockbuster by the media or movie going public?

---

Ummm, let's see... Two HARRY POTTER movies, three LOTR movies, one MUMMY movie, two new STAR WARS movies... Total of 8 movies of which I've spoken on these message boards. From the hundreds and hundreds of movies that I've seen, this small amount doesn't mean that I would "dislike nearly every film considered an 'event' or a blockbuster".

But to answer your question, I honestly DON'T find it a coincidence that I dislike "nearly every film" that nowadays comes from Hollywood's major studios. Two good reasons are the "political correctness" and the lousy scripts that prevail in Hollywood nowadays.

quote:

---

I have always said if you enter a film with preconceived notions, generally you will make those notions a reality.

---

Absolutely true, my friend - but thank heavens there are exceptions. Both TITANIC and MOULIN ROUGE! were movies I initially didn't want to see because of my preconceptions (believe it or not!) ...Luckily these movies were nothing I had expected - and, indeed, I learned my lesson.

quote:

---

The other possibility is that some folks refuse to allow themselves to enjoy films such as these, simply because they want to differentiate themselves from the mass movie-going public.

---

If I am able of admitting that I fell in love with such movies as TITANIC, EVER AFTER, MOULIN ROUGE! and Fox's animated ANASTASIA, I think there's no way I would be a person who feels the need to "differentiate himself from the mass movie-going public".

quote:

---

But be careful making broad, sweeping statements such as these...

---

What's the fun of message boards like these, if we can't express ourselves freely? I wouldn't mind seeing others writing "sweeping statements" of their own.

KEN

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Pulliam:
I think you believe it clever to play with words -- anything, in fact, to avoid dealing with other opinions.

---

Right and wrong. While I do enjoy playing with words - and a lot! - I don't believe it makes me look more clever or cooler or anything else you indicate.

I don't avoid dealing with other opinions. If you have read all that I've written on this thread, you should realize that I'm really curious to know more, to read other opinions, and to DISCUSS about an interesting subject.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Pulliam:
It never ceases to amaze me at the lengths a handful of folks will go to trying to convince everyone else that they're wrong in loving a film. There is so much emotion and human feeling in the LOTR films that Ken must TRULY be dragging his body when he goes to see them. And having dragged himself into the theater, he must have little energy left to absorb what's actually happening on the screen.
--- Ken...you just need a little steering toward the right kind of music for you: By all means, rush out and buy "John Tesh's Greatest Hits" -- I'm sure you will find it more to your liking and a better fit for your tastes.

---

Ron, one thing I'd like to ask you: Have you seen me here criticizing anyone INDIVIDUAL? My style of discussing is not attacking on individuals (people on and outside this board) --- ummm, naturally with the exception of the composers whose work we all praise / criticize here. If you haven't realized it by now: I rather criticize myself than attack on other persons or personalities.

That is why your first reply (quoted above) was, in my opinion, a little bit tactless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Pulliam:
Yeah...the rest of us -- ALL who disagree with you...the rest of us who made it the highest grossing film of 2003...

---

I don't usually speak on behalf of everyone else - I don't have problems standing by myself behind my own words and opinions.

quote:

---

I also apologize for mistaking this thread as a place to exchange ideas...it's clearly intended to be a hot air repository for the originator.

---

KEN