From the actual nominees, from 1990 to now:

[1990 Dances with Wolves (J. Barry)]
[1991 Beauty and the Beast (A. Menken)]
1992 Basic Instinct (J. Goldsmith)
[1993 Schindler's List (J. Williams)]
[1994 The Lion King (H. Zimmer)]
1995 (Drama) Sense and Sensibility (P. Doyle)
1995 (Comedy) The American President (M. Shaiman)
1996 (Drama) Michael Collins (E. Goldenthal)
1996 (Comedy) The Hunchback of Notre Dame (A. Menken)
1997 (Drama) Titanic (J. Horner)
1997 (Comedy) Anastasia (D. Newman)
1998 (Drama) The Thin Red Line (H. Zimmer)
1998 (Comedy) Mulan (J. Goldsmith)
1999 The Red Violin (J. Corigliano)
2000 Malèna (E. Morricone)
[2001 The Fellowship of the Ring (H. Shore)]
2002 Far from Heaven (E. Bernstein)
[2003 The Return of the King (H. Shore)]
2004 The Passion of the Christ (J. Debney)
2005 Memoirs of a Geisha (J. Williams)
2006 The Good German (Th. Newman)

That a better list than AMPAS? Yes? Good.

CK

- Conan, the Barbarian
- Star Trek: The Motion Picture
- The Village
- Basic Instinct

quote:

---

Originally posted by joan hue:
[B]I'll go way back in time and say that Elmer Bernstein and Jerry Goldsmith were robbed many, many times. It is heresy that To Kill A Mockingbird, The Magnificent Seven, Star Trek: TMP, Rudy and other scores didn't win. I'll add Moross' The Big Country also to Oscar robberies.

---

While I totally agree with this sentiment in principle, it's harder to argue some of these scores specifically when you compare them to what actually won. The Magnificent Seven lost to Exodus, To Kill a Mockingbird lost to Lawrence of Arabia, Star Trek lost to A Little Romance. I prefer Exodus to Seven, and though I would have liked Star Trek and Mockingbird to win, I don't think their losses quite constitute heresy considering the scores that actually won.

It is certainly a heresy that Rudy wasn't even nominated, but that was the year Schindler's List won and it would have also gone up against Age of Innocence (which would have been my pick, at least of those three).

These are all just quibbles, of course. Bernstein and Goldsmith both had myriad scores that were absolutely Oscar-worthy. Going back and figuring out on a case-by-case basis which ones I would have picked over the actual winners is something I'm not keen on doing, just because I know if I started I actually would do it, and it would take me ages of time I don't have.

Oh, and The Big Country. That lost to The Old Man and the Sea. Yeah, that might be heresy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gkgyver:
Aren't you a little ashamed that you didn't include The Two Towers?

---

Why would he be? That's not a very good score; the only really tremendous effort with LOTR is The Return Of The King. I know you're a LOTR geek, but from the more outside POV that's where it all lies.

1976 - The Tenant (Sarde)
1977 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Williams)
1978 - The Fury (Williams), with Days of Heaven (Morricone) in close second
1979 - Star Trek The Motion Picture (Goldsmith) and Alien (Goldsmith)
1980 - Altered States (Corigliano), with Empire Strikes Back (Williams)
1981 - Koyaanisqatsi (Glass), with Raiders of the Lost Ark (Williams) in close follow-up
1982 - Star Trek II (Horner)
1983 - Under Fire (Goldsmith)
1984 - Once Upon a Time in America (Morricone)
1985 - Agnes of God (Delerue), Mishima (Glass) and Ran (Takemitsu), with Revolution (Corigliano) in close second-place
1986 - The Mission (Morricone)
1987 - NONE WORTHY
1988 - A Summer Story (Delerue)
1989 - Henry V (Doyle), and Born on the Fourth of July (Williams)
1990 - Dances with Wolves (Barry)
1991 - JFK (Williams)
1992 - Bram Stoker's Dracula (Kilar)
1993 - Trois Coleurs: Bleu, Blance e Rouge (Preisner), with Remains of the Day (Robbins)
1994 - Cobb (Goldenthal), with Little Women (Newman) in close follow-up
1995 - Nixon (Williams), with Les Milles (Desplat) in back-up
1996 - Portrait of a Lady (Kilar), with Michael Collins (Goldenthal) and Hamlet (Doyle) also highly worthy
1997 - Kundun (Glass)
1998 - The Thin Red Line (Zimmer, et al)
1999 - The Red Violin (Corigliano), with The Matrix (Davis), The Ninth Gate (Kilar) and Titus (Goldenthal) in close follow-up (BIG YEAR!)
2000 - Mission to Mars (Morricone)
2001 - Caveman's Valentine (Blanchard), with special note of AI (Williams) and Naqoyqatsi (Glass)
2002 - The Dancer Upstairs (Iglesias), with Hero (Tan Dun), The Hours (Glass), Far From Heaven (Bernstein), Signs (Newton Howard) and Road to Perdition (Newman) in back-up
2003 - Return of the King (Shore), though if it were a feature film, Angels in America (Newman) just might trump it. Girl with a Pearl Earring is also superb (Desplat)
2004 - Birth (Desplat) and Deep Blue (Fenton) equally, with Troy (Yared) and Enduring Love (Sams) in back-up
2005 - Syriana (Desplat), with Memoirs of a Geisha (Williams), The Beautiful Country (Preisner) and Fateless (Morricone)
2006 - The Good German (Newman), with special note of The Painted Veil (Desplat) and The Black Dahlia (Isham)

Shore would've won for Best Song with The Two Towers, though...

quote:

---

1987: NONE WORTHY

---

NYAAAH! Try again, Mr McL! (Empire of the Sun for me...)

CK

1990 Avalon (R. Newman)
1991 Bugsy (E. Morricone)
1992 Aladdin (A. Menken)
1993 The Age of Innocence (E. Bernstein)
1994 Forrest Gump (A. Silvestri)
1995 (Drama) Braveheart (J. Horner)
1995 (Comedy) Toy Story (R. Newman)
1996 (Drama) Hamlet (P. Doyle)
1996 (Comedy) Emma (R. Portman)
1997 (Drama) Kundun (Ph. Glass)
1997 (Comedy) Men in Black (D. Elfman)
1998 (Drama) Life is Beautiful (N. Piovani)
1998 (Comedy) The Prince of Egypt (H. Zimmer)
1999 The Cider House Rules (R. Portman)
2000 Gladiator (H. Zimmer)
2001 A.I. (J. Williams)
2002 Road to Perdition (Th. Newman)
2003 Finding Nemo (Th. Newman)
2004 The Village (J. N. Howard)
2005 Munich (J. Williams)
2006 The Queen (A. Desplat)

And my choices, if I had anything to say:

1990 Edward Scissorhands (D. Elfman)
1991 Beauty and the Beast (A. Menken)
1992 1492 - Conquest of Paradise (Vangelis)
1993 Schindler's List (J. Williams)]
1994 The Lion King (H. Zimmer)]
1995 (Drama) Cutthroat Island (J. Debney)
1995 (Comedy) The American President (M. Shaiman)
1996 (Drama) Independence Day (D. Arnold)
1996 (Comedy) The Hunchback of Notre Dame (A. Menken)
1997 (Drama) Wilde (D. Wiseman)
1997 (Comedy) Princess Mononoke (J. Hisaishi)
1998 (Drama) Les Misérables (B. Poledouris)
1998 (Comedy) Mulan (J. Goldsmith)
1999 Anna and the King (G. Fenton)
2000 Chicken Run (J. Powell & H. Gregson-Williams)
2001 The Fellowship of the Ring (H. Shore)
2002 Far from Heaven (E. Bernstein)
2003 The Return of the King (H. Shore)
2004 Troy (Rejected) (G. Yared)
2005 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (P. Doyle)
2006 The Nativity Story (M. Danna)

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>Originally posted by gkgyver:
[b]Aren't you a little ashamed that you didn't include The Two Towers?<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would he be? That's not a very good score; the only really tremendous effort with LOTR is The Return Of The King. I know you're a LOTR geek, but from the more outside POV that's where it all lies.

[/B]

---

Are you kidding? You seriously think Transformers, Pirates, and pretty much everything by Hans Zimmer is better than The Two Towers?

quote:

---

Originally posted by StarlessWinter:

Are you kidding? You seriously think Transformers, Pirates, and pretty much everything by Hans Zimmer is better than The Two Towers?

---

LMAO! HAHA! You're a retard. Here's what I think of those score and one composer, each out of 5 stars:

Transformers **/*****
Pirates: Curse Of The Black Pearl */*****
Pirates: Dead Man's Chest **/*****
Pirates: At World's End *****/*****
Hans Zimmer ***/*****

As for LOTR:

LOTR: FOTR ****/*****
LOTR: TTT ***/*****
LOTR: ROTK *****/*****

Do your homework next time you want to write a blanket comment like that; I only actually like one of those scores (in your ridiculous Zimmer "grouping").

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian Kühn:
And my choices, if I had anything to say:

---

To say TTT is not a very good score is just ridiculous. No matter one's preferences, one only has to look at the thought process behind it and the astounding thematic development to realize how much passion was put into it.

[Message edited by StarlessWinter on 10-14-2007]

[Message edited by StarlessWinter on 10-14-2007]

quote:

---

Originally posted by StarlessWinter:
Well, excuse me, but this retard only ever sees you comment on topics about Zimmer, scores that sound like they were done by him, or otherwise complaining about other people who mention that they dislike a score that you like.

To say TTT is not a very good score is just ridiculous. No matter one's preferences, one only has to look at the thought process behind it and the astounding thematic development to realize how much passion was put into it.

---

No.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>Originally posted by StarlessWinter:
[b]Well, excuse me, but this retard only ever sees you comment on topics about Zimmer, scores that sound like they were done by him, or otherwise complaining about other people who mention that they dislike a score that you like.

To say TTT is not a very good score is just ridiculous. No matter one's preferences, one only has to look at the thought process behind it and the astounding thematic development to realize how much passion was put into it.

<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

No.

[/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by StarlessWinter:
Would you care to make yourself clearer?

---

Not at all. Don't rail on me for what I post, your user name doesn't exactly ring any bells, so your slams out of nowhere are hitting pretty dry; not to mention your utter incompetence at trying to peg my point of view on film scoring and what exactly my opinions are. That's the problem with you haters: You (gkgyver included) seem to think if you like a score by one composer (for example, Hans Zimmer) than you automatically hate scores by another composer (for example, Howard Shore)--it's a stupid trap you fall into, but nonetheless entertaining for me to read because you'll do it without fail. BTW, your "logic" behind why someone should like The Two Towers as much as you do is demented: Liking one score or another is personal preference, that means it's entirely subjective and therefore useless of you to put forth the argument of "thought process" and "passion" at me. I'm sure both of those words apply to something like, say, Babel, but that doesn't stop it from being a complete piece of s.h.i.t.; same for your precious LOTR (I'll guess and assume you like those movies?) ... I can tell Shore is engaged with the material, and like I wrote above, those are scores I enjoy, but it just so happens that TTT doesn't move me like it does you, and for me I'm not wrong. [/B]<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, I never said you would hate Howard Shore. I just disagreed with your comments on TTT. I've really only ever seen you comment on Hans Zimmer topics or those pertaining to scores I find generic. Maybe you do, maybe you don't...but it's all I've seen.

You complain about ignorantly grouping...well, you've just done the very same to me.

As for TTT, that's not my "logic." I never said that's why someone had to like the score; rather, I mentioned that one only has to look at the thought process behind it to see the passion in it. I don't see how you can like ROTK so much but call TTT "not very good." They aren't that different, unless you prefer more action-based music.

But for someone who apparently doesn't appreciate "slamming," you sure do take the chance to slam others, don't you? I say one thing (perhaps without proper "homework) and you just jump in with "LMAO HAHAHAHAHA! You're a retard."

Well, let's just agree to disagree, shall we?

Sure. Also, I don't care if you "slam" me or not, it makes no difference, your points were just inaccurate and lame, and just to reiterate: "thought process" can count for nothing if the result isn't moving to someone, just check the Babel example. Anyway, this is all stupid because it's completely off topic.

My original point was that yes Zimmer's The Lion King did in fact win an Oscar, but apparently Christian was unaware of this and I was curious if he had another choice for what score SHOULD HAVE won that year (1994).

Okay, anyone who regularly visits and posts here knows that I'm Howard Shore-crazy, just not always for LotR. Look, it's a fantastic achievement on Shore's part, don't get me wrong. But the fact that is overshadows the rest of Shore's work in most fans eyes makes me weary. Yes, FotR is a shining achievement of thematic writing, as is RotK; but TTT is not as good as either, and I wouldn't even consider it amongst Shore's best work where I'd most definitely put the others. The Rohan theme is mesmerizing, but it reaches it pinnacle in RotK. The Ork and Uruk-hai material feels a little underplayed. The motif for the Ents is possibly one of Shore's lesser motives (IMO) and there's very little new material in the Helm's Deep cues. Other than the new Rohan theme the only other standout is the amazing motif written for Gollum and the end titles song, "Gollum's Song", which is probably the most haunting and rich of the end title songs (definitely miles better than Enya's song and only partially better than the Annie Lennox one). RotK brings out the guns in the LotR musicverse, and it singularly made the film bearable. And watching FotR is what inspired my higher belief in Howard Shore (I had only a slight appreciation of he and Cronenberg's works together). So, other people than Sean share this opinion; even those who absolutely adore the art of Howard Shore (who is the second best living film composer, IMO).

And Sean, I wholly agree with you on 1994. Anyone who thinks that Zimmer's The Lion King was the best score of that year needs to take another long look. Other than a brain dead Academy, who chooses The Lion King over Shore's Ed Wood, Goldenthal's Cobb, Goldsmith's The Shadow, Morricone's Wolf, or Elfman' Black Beauty?! And those are only scores that I own!

quote:

---

That's the problem with you haters: You (gkgyver included) seem to think if you like a score by one composer (for example, Hans Zimmer) than you automatically hate scores by another composer (for example, Howard Shore)--it's a stupid trap you fall into

---

Don't worry, I won't stick around any longer, but since you directed this at me (once again for no reason), allow me to respond.
My problem with you never was about you liking Hans Zimmer, but with you advertising his stuff (alright, SOME of his stuff) as great and outstanding music, and that you get pretty personal as soon as you sense someone standing up against that (to witness above).

The mere fact that you see this non-existent way of thinking in me and Starless Winter reveals *your* way of thinking, which has a hint of paranoia.

And by the way, just because you don't like Two Towers as much doesn't mean you should deny it its lineage and masterful execution. The comparison with Babel falls just short because a. the scope of both movies aren't nearly on the same level, b. the time both composers had aren't nearly on the same level, c. passion and thought process does result in a better score if you have the skills to translate it into music.

Whether you like a score or not does indeed not depend on structure and passion behind it, but passion and structure *are there*, so the incredible achievements of Shore are independent from taste as well as preference. Personally, I find half of "Star Wars" boring to listen to, but does that mean it's less an achievement?
Forgive me, but this would be a more than slightly egocentric point of view.

Bye.

And no, not for "no reason": You joined in on StarlessWinter's comments, so you asked to be lumped in with that person. You think I get "personal"? Get on Lou Goldberg's bad side and then write that same thing about my posts at you (he'll tell you to die; I won't).

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
Sean Young, have you heard Shore's score for Cronenberg's eXistenZ? Undoubtedly among his top three best scores and the use of theremin is truly spooky. I really need to get back to my Cronenberg/Shore essays so I can deliver the goods on eXistenZ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
Nuts here, to settle this once and for all.

Okay, anyone who regularly visits and posts here knows that I'm Howard Shore-crazy, just not always for LotR. Look, it's a fantastic achievement on Shore's part, don't get me wrong. But the fact that is overshadows the rest of Shore's work in most fans eyes makes me weary. Yes, FotR is a shining achievement of thematic writing, as is RotK; but TTT is not as good as either, and I wouldn't even consider it amongst Shore's best work where I'd most definitely put the others. The Rohan theme is mesmerizing, but it reaches it pinnacle in RotK. The Ork and Uruk-hai material feels a little underplayed. The motif for the Ents is possibly one of Shore's lesser motives (IMO) and there's very little new material in the Helm's Deep cues. Other than the new Rohan theme the only other standout is the amazing motif written for Gollum and the end titles song, "Gollum's Song", which is probably the most haunting and rich of the end title songs (definitely miles better than Enya's song and only partially better than the Annie Lennox one). RotK brings out the guns in the LotR musicverse, and it singularly made the film bearable. And watching FotR is what inspired my higher belief in Howard Shore (I had only a slight appreciation of he and Cronenberg's works together). So, other people than Sean share this opinion; even those who absolutely adore the art of Howard Shore (who is the second best living film composer, IMO).
[Message edited by nuts_score on 10-15-2007]

---

Not all great music is in recognizable themes. I think you'll find that there is more thematic material in TTT than most people ever realize. I'm not sure which of the three I like the least, but much of Score's seemingly un-thematic material (the "underscore" with the breathing quality) is gorgeous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
Starless Winter:
I'm not denying the existence of thematic material in TTT, I just think it's the weakest score of the trilogy. Like I said, the Gollum and Rohan motif are absolutely beautiful and serve the picture well; the Ents motif and some other cues don't. And, I don't find any of the films particularly that great. Yes, they are well crafted and intelligent films, but I'm not very interested in them anymore. I find very little replay value out of them, aside from FotR and I do consider RotK the weakest film of the whole. The pacing is totally off and it becomes rather dull by the end. Sure the great battle is a feast for the eyes, but after the battle of Helm's deep, it just felt redundant. Some of the creatures were very fantastical, but after FotR, they weren't that new. I have the same problems with the recent Star Wars films. And the multiple endings are supremely unnecessary. But Shore's score is phenomenal.

Sean:
Yeah, the trailer is included on the DVD (which needs a Criterion update along with Crash, pronto; I need commentaries for both films) and it's awful. It makes the movie seem derivative of The Matrix, and surprisingly, eXistenZ was released first! The marketing of that film nearly ruins the surrounding themes and I hope that Cronenberg felt the same way; after all, he's never worked with Dimension or the Weinsteins again! I'm glad you appreciate both the film and the score; they are both certainly overlooked. And, I would agree with that comment about SUN; while there isn't enough complex thematic material, the usual nods of Cronenberg are there, which is why I think a lot of post-LotR Shore fans don't appreciate the value of Shore's SUN, which I would listen to over TTT anyday. In fact, I'm doing so now!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
I have yet to find anything that resonates emotionally with me amongst these films. Again, maybe it's just me. Visual effect filled films rarely do anything for me anymore. Sure, give me some glorious on-set or in-camera special effects and I feel connected, but sometimes the visual effects are too obvious and take me out of the spirit of the film. This happened with the LotR trilogy; I prefer Ralph Baksi's visually fulfilling, psychedelic-influenced animated film over Jackson's films. In fact, I'd prefer to see a Hobbit film in a more lighter fashion than Jackson's heavy-handed dark visuals. Peter Weir would be a great choice to take over for Jackson; I don't know why fanboys only think that Peter Jackson is the only director for every project. It's really tiring.

---

Well, for me, the emotion of the LOTR is the strongest aspect. No matter how many special effects there are, the character work is always more powerful. And it is certainly there. It shines through the effects. From Sam's speech as Frodo lies in his arms on Mount Doom, to Frodo's voiceover of how the journey has changed him, and Sam's little child running into his arms. It was overwhelming for me. I can't even begin to count how many times that film made me cry.

But we all have different tastes. However, I get tired of people thinking that every special effects film (of which LOTR had to be) is devoid of emotion.