# Just saw Transformers 2. Good fun!



## mjc (Jun 23, 2009)

I've just come back from seeing Revenge of the Fallen. I really enjoyed it! Sometimes all you want is to see big things blow up and beating the crap out of each other, and that's exactly what you get. It's just ridiculous how good visual effects are getting now, I couldn't believe how real everything looked!

On a musical note (no pun intended haha  ) I'd heard the soundtrack before seeing the movie...and I found it very odd that half the themes on there don't feature in the movie. I know of course they edit cues down to make into more of an 'album'...but for example, track 5 on the OST ('The Fallen') doesn't even appear in the film :? (I don't necessarily mean the track, but the actual theme)...what the hell is the point of that!? Also the new development of Prime's theme (which I must admit is way too similar to Batman's theme in the Dark Knight...nice one RC) barely features in the movie but is all over the OST. What's the deal???


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 24, 2009)

*"Sometimes all you want is to see big things blow up and beating the crap out of each other, and that's exactly what you get."*

Not me, and now I want to smack you...but whatever... :evil:


----------



## A.C.Edwards (Jun 24, 2009)

> Not me, and now I want to smack you...but whatever... Evil or Very Mad



well that was a bit harsh...

Just saw it too, great fun, if your so out of touch that you can't appeal to that inner child, then this movie DEFINITELY isn't for you, otherwise, definitely check it out.

The score puzzles me too.. any thoughts on what's going on there?


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 24, 2009)

I thought the first one was pretty bad. And judging by the trailer they have enhanced all the things I disliked.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 24, 2009)

A.C.Edwards @ Tue Jun 23 said:


> > Not me, and now I want to smack you...but whatever... Evil or Very Mad
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm half joking...but mostly not. 

Honest to god...I know a very successful and highly regarded industry professional for whom this film represented their deep need to retire and resume being an artist. The second part of that story is perhaps the most compelling...it involves bringing to life the work of one of the world's highest regarded filmmakers. And that's all I can say without betraying this person's confidence.

Just...for me too...this film represents what's wrong with Hollywood. But I'm glad you guys liked the explosions!

I'm not opposed to CGI or explosions...to a point...but when the draw is how real the explosions look. Yikes. 

2012 too -- ok so they make the world look like it's exploding...then what?...how do you out do that?...blow up the universe? I mean, it's like who fuggin cares...?

The scores we admire most were not written for these garbage films...there was actually a story involved.

The day composers are writing scores for films with NO story is the day composers aren't NECESSARY. Just say'n...it's your fight too.


The kid in me likes stories...accompanied by music with a soul...


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 24, 2009)

BTW -- I promise to shut up now.


----------



## A.C.Edwards (Jun 24, 2009)

ahuh... to be honest I only read half of that... 

I will ask you not to patronize me any further. There is no need for that here.

And don't go on your art rant about Hollywood here, the music in action adventure films is the bread and butter of Hollywood, if you had any sense you'd see that.

So yes, you will shut up now.

Please don't reply to this kid-surf, I really don't care what you have to say back.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 24, 2009)

Who's patronizing who...? 8) 

My first statement was clearly a joke, then you got bent...now your Underoos are on too tight, and inside out.

I have 'sense' enough to realize that these films, while they make money, are at best an amusement park ride for the fanny-pack crowd. Art hadn't crossed my mind...much less quality entertainment. 

Apparently...I didn't shut up. Free speech, and all. Skip over what I type, it's your right. I swear.


----------



## billval3 (Jun 24, 2009)

I think a movie can be enjoyable just as an escape from reality, even if it's not terribly brilliant. Movies like Transformers, however, make you want to escape from the theater! Actually, I watched it at someone's house and was bored and annoyed the whole time.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 24, 2009)

Good point! I'm all for escapism. The last thing people need right now is to be reminded of their (or the world's) problems...

But yeah...please make something entertaining enough to keep me in my seat...


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 24, 2009)

Might there come a time when ALL big-screen films are made/cater to 12-20-yr olds? What I mean is that perhaps in the very near future, big screen + popcorn/coke = big crap film (no offence, just no script), while small screen (well you know, 40 inches) + home = intelligent film? Maybe if we just start thinking of movie theatres as amusement parks, we won't be disappointed/wquote:1abfe3f4e3="mathis @ Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:17 am"]I don't know and I don't care. I have to work with these samples, not look at some ugly GUI.

The license is for the s


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Jun 24, 2009)

You can see this development in tv series. I enjoy most tv series today more than any featurelength movie, because there is: better stories, more character development, more unpredictability. I don't know why most movies today have to be boring while an episode of "how i met your mother" is funny, clever plotted and totally unpredictable. 

I hope that you don't forget that a movie like Transformers is a piece of art in itself when it comes to sound design and visual fx...


----------



## Ed (Jun 24, 2009)

kid-surf @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> Good point! I'm all for escapism. The last thing people need right now is to be reminded of their (or the world's) problems...
> 
> But yeah...please make something entertaining enough to keep me in my seat...



Sometimes I like McDonalds!

But I do wish they'd come out with a Transformers style film that had a really good script as well.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 24, 2009)

Andreas Moisa @ 24/6/2009 said:


> I hope that you don't forget that a movie like Transformers is a piece of art in itself when it comes to sound design and visual fx...



But isn't the sound design in that kind of film more like sound-by-numbers? Big, Bigger, BIGGEST! Explosions, smashing giants, steel-on-steel = not art, more flash/smoke and mirrors. To me, art requires invention and risk-taking. 

And the best visual FX? Vermeer. OK, more recent = Philippe Petit (Man on Wire) lies on a wire, on his back, hundreds of feet in the air. ART! :wink: 

PS: I'm tired of technical prowess passing off as art. It's not. It's technically impressive, but not art, IMHO.


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Jun 24, 2009)

Well I don't know Ned, what is art? It's just that I assume that these guys who did all this work on Transformers have the same right to be respected for their craft/art as everyone on this forum presenting a piece of music.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Jun 24, 2009)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> Might there come a time when ALL big-screen films are made/cater to 12-20-yr olds? What I mean is that perhaps in the very near future, big screen + popcorn/coke = big crap film (no offence, just no script), while small screen (well you know, 40 inches) + home = intelligent film? Maybe if we just start thinking of movie theatres as amusement parks, we won't be disappointed/worried about the state of cinema - I never come out of a roller-coaster/bumper cars/whatever thinking, "Whoa, they really insulted my intelligence with that ride!".


We are almost there. At least in L.A. I guess the offerings in Europe may be more varied, but here it seems to me all movies are about: characters from computer games, cartoons I read as an 8-year old, trolls and gremlins that run across the screen in thousands, anything that can explode (space ships for instance), vampires and blood squirting, etc. etc. "Transformers" was an animated kid's TV show and a favorite toy among 6-8 year olds, if I remember correctly? >8o


----------



## Niah (Jun 24, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> TV show and a favorite toy among 6-8 year olds, if I remember correctly? >8o



ehhehehe yea I loved it and I used to play with optumus prime or whatever his name was.

But yea I agree with you guys that it just seems to get dumber and dumber.

I love cinema but I also like the good old entertainment filck once in a while, and it just seems like there's none of the stuff that I had when I was growing up. You know stuff like: Star wars, Aliens, Terminator 1 & 2, Indiana Jones, movies that still stand today.

Also it seems like back then technology was hand in hand with quality, not just void.

Now I don't ask for art from these type of movies I just ask to be entertained and to escape a little yes, but I'm sorry to say most of them bore me to death. I'm not kidding, if I haven't slept well the other day I will most likely fall asleep for a few minutes even with all the explosions. These movies are supposed to keep me entertained and awake?. :lol: 

oh and Terminator: salvation? wooot? :lol:

maybe I'm just being nostalgic and don't belong to the target audience of these flicks anymore,,,who knows

Now back to watching Die Hard 1 ! go willis ! go !


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 24, 2009)

> Might there come a time when ALL big-screen films are made/cater to 12-20-yr olds? What I mean is that perhaps in the very near future, big screen + popcorn/coke = big crap film (no offence, just no script), while small screen (well you know, 40 inches) + home = intelligent film? Maybe if we just start thinking of movie theatres as amusement parks, we won't be disappointed/worried about the state of cinema - I never come out of a roller-coaster/bumper cars/whatever thinking, "Whoa, they really insulted my intelligence with that ride!".



I know you're playing devils advocate. My take is this...

That's what the studios believe to be true, now. And I agree, on paper it makes sense. But, in practice, our subconscious still demands an compelling story. My view is that these explosions and such can and should (generally) reside in films with a compelling story, it's not as if writers can't write them. Thing is, if we CARE what happens to the protagonist/hero, suddenly the explosions MEAN something - All based on believable/primal stakes that are raised each step of the way. We're bored in these movies because we don't really believe (consciously or subconsciously) that anything is truly at stake...we're not sold.

With an amusement park ride, we're sold that this shit is scary!!! We BELIEVE!!! :D We believe OUR life is at stake - somewhere in the back of our mind we're thinking of that story about the dude who was killed on a roller-coaster. Seriously.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 24, 2009)

Andreas Moisa @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> You can see this development in tv series. I enjoy most tv series today more than any featurelength movie, because there is: better stories, more character development, more unpredictability. I don't know why most movies today have to be boring while an episode of "how i met your mother" is funny, clever plotted and totally unpredictable.



This is a sensibility I deal with day-in-day-out as I'm strategizing with film producers on the one hand and TV producers on the other. It's exactly what you described. I find there is much more leeway with TV ideas, whereas in film they want you to fit the idea inside a tiny box and play it very safe. With TV they want you to think "character...be authentic...take it all the way". With film they want yo to think "BIG...but cheap...and don't offend anyone."



> I hope that you don't forget that a movie like Transformers is a piece of art in itself when it comes to sound design and visual fx...



True in a sense. But the more it becomes about that particular art form, the less we care what "happens" in said film.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 24, 2009)

Hans -- way to sum it up!

Niah -- Die Hard is generally regarded as the #1 action flick of all time. There's a reason for that - we cared what happened. 

Hollywood films are akin to the Loudness War pertaining to pop music - who can have the LOUDEST film!!!

Star Wars was great because it had contrast. It EARNED its loud sections and made us care what happened. The score speaks for itself. And I don't particularly like Sci-fi...

Ironically, I'm writing a (grounded) Sci-fi/Action flick next. But it's closer to The Matrix than Transformers. If it gets made it will have CGI and be LOUD in spots, but I want the story to EARN those action sequences...so that the audience cares, and doesn't fall asleep or want to leave angry.


Anywhat...


----------



## JohnG (Jun 24, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ 23rd June 2009 said:


> I thought the first one was pretty bad. And judging by the trailer they have enhanced all the things I disliked.



Took the words right out of my mouth. Good one, Christian!


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 24, 2009)

kid-surf @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> Ironically, I'm writing a (grounded) Sci-fi/Action flick next.



Normally I'd say you're screwed trying to get that sold but maybe after Cameron's "Avatar" lands it'll totally change things. Not to mention if they ever make "Source Code" <<awesome script.

I haven't seen Transformers 2 and never plan to but from the trailers it looks like another huge steaming pile of CGI headache. Sometimes I see what does well at the box office and wonder if there's been a slow dumbing down of the human race. Anyone ever seen the movie Idiocracy? After 500 years there's been a large dumbing down of the population due to the white trash propensity to procreate. The president of the U.S. is a Smackdown champion with a cape and you can take law school at Costco.


----------



## Jaap (Jun 24, 2009)

Haven't seen the first and not planning to see the second as well. Not my kind of movies. I agree that a bit more story would be suitable.
I like entertainment and just forget the world around me, but at least make up a bit of a story around the special effects. I don't care how intelligent the story is, but I need indeed a bit more then a excuse to just blow up everything.


----------



## spectrum (Jun 24, 2009)

The argument here is about setting the bar higher.

After all, think about what we were watching last year when the 'Dark Knight' came out.

I'd say that a film like that demonstrates very well that the quality/entertainment factor of summer movies can be a whole lot better than what Michael Bay keeps serving up. 

Star Trek is a great example for this summer. A fun popcorn movie doesn't need to be stupid to be enjoyable.

I'm glad these films got made and weren't relegated to TV.

Both of these examples made massive money at the box office too.....the audience isn't nearly as stupid as the executives and filmmakers think.


----------



## john rodriguez (Jun 24, 2009)

Looks like Ebert had some good fun too :D 

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090623/REVIEWS/906239997 (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... /906239997)


----------



## Ed (Jun 24, 2009)

john rodriguez @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> Looks like Ebert had some good fun too :D
> 
> http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090623/REVIEWS/906239997 (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... /906239997)



Wow he really liked it!


----------



## synthetic (Jun 24, 2009)

Perhaps this movie is so bad that the tide will start to turn. "Dark Knight" was a great example of an action movie that still allows your brain to function but those are so rare anymore. I'm so sick of CGI comic book guy beating on other CG monster. WHO cares. Comic book guys who know the backstory, perhaps, but they've had their time. No more comic book/toy movies.


----------



## synthetic (Jun 24, 2009)

I haven't listened to the soundtrack yet but I'll take a guess: hero theme is vi-IV-I-V. 

Am I close? 

[Thinks of listening to samples on iTunes... decided cleaning coffee pot would be more productive use of time.]


----------



## Ed (Jun 24, 2009)

I didnt really like Dark Knight. I mean it was good and had some nice cool plot twists but the Batman character was crap and almost inconsequential. And whoevers decision it was to put that even gravelier voice on Bale shouldnt work in film again. Performance by Ledger is the reason to watch it, which was totally awesome. Maybe I didnt like it so much because of the hype, but to be fair it was still a lot more intelligent than most other action films.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 24, 2009)

choc0thrax @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> kid-surf @ Wed Jun 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Ironically, I'm writing a (grounded) Sci-fi/Action flick next.
> ...



Haven't read Source Code, I'll look into it...

That said, ironically or not, it's not always about selling things: I'm writing the Sci-fi (don't like that word because it's misleading as to the script I'm writing. Nobody has special powers, or levitates, no space ships or laser guns etc.) for other purposes. If it sells, cool, doesn't need to sell to add plenty of value ($) in several directions, so long as people love it. I "have" to call it Sci-fi only due to it being set 10 years from now, otherwise it's a smart, dark-ish, Action/Thriller. Then again, it's just a kick ass story we've not seen...with strong themes.

Value - With comedy one obviously writes to sell/make it. You can sell your pitch with a logline, it's 50% of the market. With everything else you build your career/value out there other ways. Those who approach it smartly don't always aim for the "sell", they aim for quality, ignoring market trends. Bringing the market to them...creating it.

For example: One of the scripts you read, which I don't think you particularly liked (no prob...), everyone would have told me to never write it. Yet, that script landed strongly with several taste makers around town...the type of guys who are very picky and refuse to work with/consider many of the writers who do these crap type films...writers that are far more established than myself. Yet, they consider me. We're trying to crack films which are a little more elevated.

In other words, I'd rather write for Michael Mann than Michael Bay. And I don't want people to view me as one trick pony with no depth.

I do also have the "sure thing/any director under the sun could just go direct this", and a regarded producer for it, and we may be able to package it. But really, what does that get me in the long run? I'd rather write one more good one before I deal with that one...

The writers who please studios are not always the same as those who please directors and actors. In my genre, smart representations suggests pleasing finicky producers, and to a larger extent taste-maker directors and actors, as they can greenlight anything...or...have you write something else for them.

TV is were I'm seeing the cash cow.


--BACK TO TOPIC--


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 24, 2009)

Ed @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> I didnt really like Dark Knight. I mean it was good and had some nice cool polt twists but the Batman character was crap and almost inconsequential. And whoevers decision it was to put that even gravelier voice on Bale shouldnt work in film again. Performance by Ledger is the reason to watch it, which was totally awesome. Maybe I didnt like it so much because of the hype, but to be fair it was still a lot more intelligent than most other action films.



+1 Word for word...


----------



## Ed (Jun 24, 2009)

Thanks Kid, 

I agree that TV seems to be a great medium nowadays. We have BSG, Lost and a variety of other series' with great writing and production values. Sure none of them are perfect but where else could you tell a story that way? The good thing is with TV you can have a few dodgy episodes yet still still be really great overall series yet you screw a film up and thats it you only have one chance, and only around a hundred minutes to get it right.


----------



## billval3 (Jun 24, 2009)

Ed @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> I didnt really like Dark Knight. I mean it was good and had some nice cool polt twists but the Batman character was crap and almost inconsequential. And whoevers decision it was to put that even gravelier voice on Bale shouldnt work in film again. Performance by Ledger is the reason to watch it, which was totally awesome. Maybe I didnt like it so much because of the hype, but to be fair it was still a lot more intelligent than most other action films.



I agree. It was better than some, but still not that great. I usually tend to get bored in the obligatory chase sequences. The Bourne series comes to mind as having action sequence that don't get tedious.

I should probably admit a bit of a prejudice on the Batman front, though, having grown up on a strictly Marvel super heroes diet. Batman is DC. Those guys were not real superheroes as far as we were concerned. 8)


----------



## Ed (Jun 24, 2009)

Bourne was probably the best action film Ive seen in a long long time. Possibly because it was a book first? Dunno... also havent read it. 

Even Mr and Mrs Smith which sounded like a stupid ridiculous plot when I heard about it actually was done really well. Kid probably doesnt like it, but it really surprised me on all levels.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 24, 2009)

spectrum @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> The argument here is about setting the bar higher.
> 
> After all, think about what we were watching last year when the 'Dark Knight' came out.
> 
> ...




Agreed... that's all, the bar simply needs to be set higher. Folks are more savvy than ever. If the films are better, we do not therefore loose the lowest common denominator, the explosions and car chases are still there...just, now, the smart people care what happens. It's a win-win. This way the film doesn't lose 50% attendance the second week it opens.

The argument (from the studio) is that the foreign market is 50% of box office. So, since english isn't their native language they don't understand primal themes? I don't buy that...

There's one thing you can count on, film executives (particularly those under 30) believe they are the smartest dudes in the room at all times. The writer is just some guy who fills in the blanks. 

I find TV executives to be far more open minded than film...Then again, I've never met with Network TV folks (not interested).


----------



## Brian Ralston (Jun 24, 2009)

You guys need to go rent the film *THE TV SET*. Jake Kasdan directed and the entire film is pretty much taken from real things that have happened to him or those around him in the industry. 

And the only reason it did not get a bigger release was because it got caught up in the ThinkFilm debacle last year. Then it got dumped to DVD and Showtime. 

But seriously...go rent it, netflix it, etc... it is good, funny...and based on actual events, sometimes word for word.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 24, 2009)

Ed @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> Thanks Kid,
> 
> I agree that TV seems to be a great medium nowadays. We have BSG, Lost and a variety of other series' with great writing and production values. Sure none of them are perfect but where else could you tell a story that way? The good thing is with TV you can have a few dodgy episodes yet still still be really great overall series yet you screw a film up and thats it you only have one chance, and only around a hundred minutes to get it right.



Agreed, that's one thing I love about thinking TV. You've got time to explore drawn out compelling themes, it's not about simply "saving the world from certain destruction at the last possible second". And, it's largely focused on character as opposed to rigid plot rules.

They're both on screens, but the way in which you create either is very different.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 24, 2009)

Ed @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> Bourne was probably the best action film Ive seen in a long long time. Possibly because it was a book first? Dunno... also havent read it.
> 
> Even Mr and Mrs Smith which sounded like a stupid ridiculous plot when I heard about it actually was done really well. Kid probably doesnt like it, but it really surprised me on all levels.



Haven't seen all of Smith, only parts of.

Bourne is a great concept. I mostly liked the films. Though it was only loosely based on the books. It's the everyday guy (because he doesn't yet know who he is) thrown into extraordinary circumstances. It's got all the elements to make us care if he lives or dies and/or learns who did this to him.

Motivated action that we believe could really happen...


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 24, 2009)

Brian -- cool, I'll look into it...


----------



## john rodriguez (Jun 24, 2009)

Brian Ralston @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> You guys need to go rent the film *THE TV SET*. Jake Kasdan directed and the entire film is pretty much taken from real things that have happened to him or those around him in the industry.
> 
> And the only reason it did not get a bigger release was because it got caught up in the ThinkFilm debacle last year. Then it got dumped to DVD and Showtime.
> 
> But seriously...go rent it, netflix it, etc... it is good, funny...and based on actual events, sometimes word for word.



Great movie, the last shot is priceless. A shame it never got a wider release, maybe if it had a few more explosions...


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 24, 2009)

Yeah TV is where it's at. It's awesome to find a new show you really like and then realize there's like 5 seasons in store for you. The downside is your fav show can get cancelled at any time. So pissed that Firefly and Carnivale didn't have more seasons, even brother Justin in my avatar is angry.

Bourne series is awesome. Tony Gilroy rocks. I think they're making a 4th film without him writing because he hates the series, he still hasn't even watched Ultimatum.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jun 24, 2009)

A.C.Edwards @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> The score puzzles me too.. any thoughts on what's going on there?


 
Probably because there were many fingers in the proverbial music pie, for example:
___________________________
Original Music by Steve Jablonsky 

Ryeland Allison. composer: additional music
John Sponsler, composer: additional music
Hans Zimmer, composer: additional music
Clay Duncan, composer: additional music
Tom Gire, composer: additional music
Linkin Park, composer: additional music
Bob Badami, music consultant
Howard Scarr, synth programming

Kevin Globerman, digital score recordist
Kevin Kaska, orchestrator
Peter Rotter, orchestra contractor
Ramiro Belgardt, supervising music editor
Peter Oso Snell, assistant music editor
Alan Meyerson, music scoring mixer
Katia Lewin Palomo, assistant score mixer
Steven Kofsky, music production services
Mixed at Remote Control
___________________________


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 24, 2009)

well if everyone is throwing opinions here and there.. 

here is mine.. 

i think evolution and capitalism have a lot of similar traits. in capitalism a bad store/business just goes under and good ones prosper and get bigger. and a movie IS a business.. one movie is a hell of a product. a product thats based on different arts, or art that gets sold. they both go hand in hand. always a sour companionship for some. 

so if people didnt like this type of films then they would not go see them and filmmakers would be thinking how do we make our art so it sells.. (actually, how do we make our art so the "suits" will gives us money to eat and continue doing art)
but the point is, this movies are selling and selling very good. 

its an organic process of elimination, jaws sold big time, while "The Giant Spider Invasion" from the same year didnt have such luck. so investors or more willing to give speilberg or filmakers money to make another movie with similar traits or use whats working and continue to grow from there. 

of course jaws was great but jaws 5 wasnt, so by process of weeding out, seems speilberg to be the magic bullet. or the writter etc. 

simple stuff but dont know why poeple "fight it" just dont watch it. demand moves the economy (well other stuff to much thats beyond the point)

i personaly love movies like this, but transformers 1 was a bit too cheesy. 
people thought the last batman was great, i thought it was too long. but still liked it. 

with al that said, one of the best tv shows is american idol.. and reality shows. i mean , the are the ones with the biggest demand. and they very much suck. 
which means ... and the reason i dont like democracy (but the best one so far) is that crowds or most people are dumbasses. 

so do we know better? cause we at least have some sort of higher education , 
because we are tech incline , etc. 
or do the masses know better when someone jingles some shiny and loud objects at them ?
btw, i am talking about the action vfx genre not this movie in specific. 
i have to say i like cause friends of mine worked on it  
damn that was long. im bored waiting while i convert my giga libs into kontakt.


----------



## artsoundz (Jun 25, 2009)

choc0thrax @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> Yeah TV is where it's at. It's awesome to find a new show you really like and then realize there's like 5 seasons in store for you. The downside is your fav show can get cancelled at any time. So pissed that Firefly and Carnivale didn't have more seasons, even brother Justin in my avatar is angry.
> 
> Bourne series is awesome. Tony Gilroy rocks. I think they're making a 4th film without him writing because he hates the series, he still hasn't even watched Ultimatum.



+1 on Firefly. Best western ever.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 25, 2009)

choc0thrax @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> Yeah TV is where it's at. It's awesome to find a new show you really like and then realize there's like 5 seasons in store for you. The downside is your fav show can get cancelled at any time. So pissed that Firefly and Carnivale didn't have more seasons, even brother Justin in my avatar is angry.
> 
> Bourne series is awesome. Tony Gilroy rocks. I think they're making a 4th film without him writing because he hates the series, he still hasn't even watched Ultimatum.



Never heard of Firefly, then again I'm not a Western type'a guy. Though I like movies/characters set in isolation. Thus, Bowie's son's Moon interests me if it's exploring the themes I think it is.

I dig Gilroy (opening monolog to Michael Clayton is some of the best/poetic dialog I've read). Too bad he chose to do Duplicity. Sometimes it's good to have producers check you - to pull you back from tunnel vision on a bad idea. The more successful one is, the more everyone backs off...afraid to have an opinion. Allan Ball dropped the ball that way with Towelhead.

Shit happens...


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 25, 2009)

gsilbers -- Your math doesn't quite add up to me. But that's only an opinion. Although, I love crap reality tv. The last thing I'm interested in at the end of the day is scripted tv. I'd rather watch real people being fake.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 25, 2009)

I thought this audition was funny:

http://www.paramountpictures.co.uk/film ... _hiro.html

It will not suffice to lure me into the movie but still funny.


----------



## AR (Jun 25, 2009)

Just went to the show yesterday...and it was quite funny. Nice robots, excellent Sounddesign and a lot of action going on...though not so good as the first movie. Don't know why? Maybe, its more for kids this time. 
The score was okay. But not as good as in the first movie. 
But still it was a cool experience watching that movie in a big theater. 

Greetings
AR


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 25, 2009)

I hope you had a BIG popcorn and a BIG Coke.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 25, 2009)

kid-surf @ Thu Jun 25 said:


> choc0thrax @ Wed Jun 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Never heard of Firefly, then again I'm not a Western type'a guy.



It's a western but set in space. The movie Serenity was based on the show.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal ... large.html

A good opportunity to see Chiwetel Ejiofor slice up people with a sword in space.


----------



## billval3 (Jun 25, 2009)

gsilbers @ Thu Jun 25 said:


> so if people didnt like this type of films then they would not go see them and filmmakers would be thinking how do we make our art so it sells.. (actually, how do we make our art so the "suits" will gives us money to eat and continue doing art)
> but the point is, this movies are selling and selling very good.



I think the attraction of transformers has to do with people having already bought into a brand. Also. it's usually a given that sequels will make money despite the fact that they are usually worse.

These movies sell, yes, but why don't they see that they could sell EVEN BETTER if they had a good script?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 25, 2009)

billval3 @ 25/6/2009 said:


> These movies sell, yes, but why don't they see that they could sell EVEN BETTER if they had a good script?



You're assuming that these people can tell a good script from a bad one. :wink:


----------



## AR (Jun 25, 2009)

Hey Ned, 
as a matter of fact I did; 2 Cokes, and a chicken wings menu...hehe

I went to the cinema with that intention...did not expect more from Michael Bay.
But when he would ask me, if I can do music for such a movie, I would say "Hell yeah!" :D


----------



## billval3 (Jun 25, 2009)

AR @ Thu Jun 25 said:


> Hey Ned,
> as a matter of fact I did; 2 Cokes, and a chicken wings menu...hehe
> 
> I went to the cinema with that intention...did not expect more from Michael Bay.
> But when he would ask me, if I can do music for such a movie, I would say "Hell yeah!" :D



Okay, but if there were something better playing, would you have gone to that instead? I've seen plenty of action movies that were just plain fun. I would give them 3 stars out of 5. They're not the kind of flick that makes you complain throughout or get distracted by stupidity. They can even be over the top, such as a movie like Crank or how about Wanted? I didn't love either, but they kept my attention. Crank probably didn't have a good script, but the visual effects were truly interesting not just "real." I don't think real (or big) should cut it anymore.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 25, 2009)

billval3 @ Thu Jun 25 said:


> gsilbers @ Thu Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> > These movies sell, yes, but why don't they see that they could sell EVEN BETTER if they had a good script?



I wouldn't blame Kurtzman and Orci, they aren't bad writers, they also wrote the new Star Trek. They are working with Michael Bay who is an artistic black hole.


----------



## Ed (Jun 25, 2009)

Wanted was stupid. effects were good. I cant remember the name of the recent film but I remember the review they used on the poster in big letters said nothing about the film or story or anything, simply that the special effects were amazing, Bad sign haha.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 25, 2009)

All those special effects in Wanted were created with pirated software heh.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 25, 2009)

Wow...I coincidentally just heard something about the flick that would likely shock some of you (burst the bubble?). Obviously, I can't betray anyone's confidence. And I apologize for the tease, but...

That's the thing about Hollywood, people are way more candid than you sometimes expect...

If you're dying to know, call me, I can't put it in type. Pretty fascinating, although I'm really not surprised. Like I said, people are smarter than they often let on.

Sorry so cryptic...but if you do the math you can probably figure out what I'm saying, though I won't confirm nor deny.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 25, 2009)

Target audience? 8-14.

Smarts? Not so much. School system is not in such good shape in many cities.

Points of reference, experience? Multitasking: simultaneous videogaming, chatting, watching tv, etc.

Attention? Very low. Probably texting at the same time as watching the movie.

What kind of script... huh... do we really need one? They might find it gets in the way of the action, and that the dialogue gets in the way of the sound fx.

That's my take.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 25, 2009)

kid-surf @ Thu Jun 25 said:


> gsilbers -- Your math doesn't quite add up to me. But that's only an opinion. Although, I love crap reality tv. The last thing I'm interested in at the end of the day is scripted tv. I'd rather watch real people being fake.



oh, its just a fancy and long way of saying that filmakers are going to make movies that sell, and what sell is fancy VFX/CGI action blockbuster films in which having a "good" script is secondary. 


BTW i heard that transformers 2 started shooting w/o a script. >8o 
but that could be another stupid rumor. 

the only thing i know for sure is that micheal bay kept changing and changing everyhting until the last moment, but whats new right?

also in the news they mentioned that the 2 jive talking "brother bots" was considered racist by some because it was too stereotypical.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Jun 26, 2009)

stevenson-again @ Fri Jun 26 said:


> what on earth is wrong with a bit of unmitigated tat every now and then?


For me a good movie should have qualities similar that of a good book. Just as in a good book where the main entertainment value is not in the illustrated pages, but in a compelling story, I prefer a film which retains its entertainment value also without the special effects and explosions etc. Most of the movies of today only have a cartoon style story where nothing remains if you remove the special effects and the explosions etc. To me it appears this type of movie is not just happening "every now and then", but has become the staple Hollywood hopes to survive on by attracting young audiences.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 26, 2009)

> Most of the movies of today only have a cartoon style story where nothing remains if you remove the special effects and the explosions etc. To me it appears this type of movie is not just happening "every now and then", but has become the staple Hollywood hopes to survive on by attracting young audiences.



where i specifically disagree is


> Most of the movies of today



absolutely there are movies where that is the case but they are definitely not in the majority, and the trend if anything has been away from them. take another 'summer blockbuster' - hancock. it's not the worlds greatest movie i grant you, but its not the worlds worst either. plus there were some wonderful unexpected touches in there that to me didn't feel like a bunch of producers thinking about merchandising and being down wiv de kidz.

how about ratatouille? i didn't think that was kids movie at all....fortunately they seemed to enjoy it well enough. (amazing score - just absolutely brilliant). i can think of dozens of films where i thought there was some decent scripting/character development that appealed to younger audiences - which lets face it - is the bread and butter of your local multiplex.

which makes your point that you don't have to abandon good script writing to make a good film that appeals to a broad audience, but is against your point that 'most' films are like that these days.

and not every film has to be brilliant beyond words. a fresh idea played out, or an old idea played out well. i do think there is a place for a 'transformers' sort of movie, they can be good fun, and its a bit of kids entertainment. remember too that kids generally go to the cinema with their parents, but parents (when they go to see films) don't take the kids, so the potential audience for 'grown-up' films is much smaller. i have seen soo many 'kids' movies as my kids have gotten to that age that i am relatively grateful that a fair portion of them have been able to entertain me as well...depsite spending most of my pre-kid years practically living in art-house cinemas.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Jun 26, 2009)

stevenson-again @ Fri Jun 26 said:


> how about ratatouille?


I saw Ratatouille with some kids, 8-10 years old, and it was a cute well-made movie. To me, the story was definitely that of a children's book.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 26, 2009)

Speaking of childrens stories who's excited for Spike Jonze's "*Where the Wild Things Are*"?! :D 

I can't wait for 4 months.

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/wh ... re/trailer

BTW I saw Transformers just for the CGI, and yes once you get over how great the CG is you get very bored...in fact I fell asleep.


----------



## Lex (Jun 26, 2009)

Still didnt cacth Transformers2...but I want to see it...and dont expect anything more then loud french horns and big ass robots running around...

Just out of curiousity, since we r all composers here, considering the very strong opinions here, how many of you would say "no thank you" in hypotetical case you were offered to score Transformers 2?

aLex


----------



## Jaap (Jun 26, 2009)

From my own "idealistic" small world now I would shout "noooo", but when it comes to the point if somebody would really ask me I am almost sure I would find some good excuses like, good credits, good money for better gear, good experience etc and say yes in the end.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 26, 2009)

Lex @ Fri Jun 26 said:


> Just out of curiousity, since we r all composers here, considering the very strong opinions here, how many of you would say "no thank you" in hypotetical case you were offered to score Transformers 2?
> 
> aLex



I would take the job, but than most likely get fired for not following temp.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 26, 2009)

Well Alex, as there appears to be no shortage of composers willing to score "Revenge of the Caged Furious Ninjas VI," I doubt that the release of "Transformers 3" will be held up by the inability to find a composer.

That said, the best action movies and series ("Die Hard" and maybe "Lethal Weapon") combine a large amount of tat with yearnings and mistakes that resonate in real life and that raise the film experience above the predictable. Petty vanity in the hero, rivalries among the good guys for credit and money/booty, romantic antagonism and divorce, arrogance or lying in the "good" characters, grumpiness or irritability, disappointment and loss -- these elevate movies from "Toy Story" to "Alien" to "Raiders" to "Harry Potter" to [anything else by Pixar] to whatever. 

I don't see anyone quarreling with explosions and running around and special effects -- hot diggity! I think instead what people deplore is spending $50-$200 million on a picture but failing to season the action with honest dilemmas, suffering and pain that run beyond teenage drives for sex and a car; kinks in the characters that actually can move or upset the audience, and raise a movie from good to great.


----------



## cc64 (Jun 26, 2009)

choc0thrax @ Thu Jun 25 said:


> kid-surf @ Thu Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> > choc0thrax @ Wed Jun 24 said:
> ...



Haven't seen this movie. It seems allright. It's just weird that the first and biggest name(talking font size here but may also be true in Hollywood number$), come to think of it, only name at the end of the trailer is David Newman?!?

Claude


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 26, 2009)

raise a movie from good to great??

man - i don't want to go to a film like transformers and be forced to concede there was ANYTHING intelligent about it. that's half the point of the film - it's vapid nonsense.

here is a great review which pretty much sums up my views on this:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/blockbus ... eview.html

especially this:



> Remember last time you were in the company of a small boy who sat on a rug growling soft imprecations to himself and smashing two action figures (or perhaps toy cars) together? That’s Transformers 2. Except on a bigger budget.



i think if i was distracted by a clever plot device or character development i would feel cheated out of an opportunity to see something else blowup or a seductive shot of megan fox rummaging around under the hood of a V8. seriously you gotta see this film on the level at which it was aimed. it might mean bending your legs a little.

on a serious note regarding this, we actually studied this phenomenon in film school. we had a 3 hour lecture analysis on luc bessons 'the fifth element'. it was pretty interesting in that it was a film maker who deliberately set out to deconstruct his craft - about post modernist ideals - style over content etc etc. the lecturer maintained that it simply interesting that film maker who knew their craft well chose to make this film in this way. at least it was a good way to compare and point up what NOT to do in a way. it was not a particularly successful film for good reason...but it does seem to enjoy a kind of cult status - which is interesting in itself.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 26, 2009)

stevenson-again @ Fri Jun 26 said:


> hello everyone,
> 
> first post here so i thought i'd set the tone by being highly opinionated...actually i have been reading this forum for ages but constantly had my registration rejected. SvK invited me to join literally years ago but that didn't work then either....hmmm
> 
> ...




i agree with you man. 

every generation thinks their experience was much better than the current generation. 
but some grow up or just mold to new things. 
for me., i cannot belive that in the current radio stations in LA are still putting out songs from 1994-1996. nirvana, pearl jam, etc and its not classic rock yet. ?!
its good music, 
or new green day which sounds exaclty like they did with their album dookie. 
i used to like it but after 5 years.. maybe its time to move on. there is so much 
in music going on, its just that the label lost control of it with P2P, conpetition from other media and not knowing what to do with all this new technology. 


as for movies, and what i agree with steve here is that you cannot expect more then it is. you cannot expect optimus prime have a crisis of faith while helping his dying brother and remebering the sadness of concentratino camps in decepticonland, all while whatching hi def images of their homeland when they where kids. :lol: 

with that said many thought that star trek was great because of the plot. which i didnt think so but watever, still though it was good fun flix


----------



## nikolas (Jun 26, 2009)

It's entertainment, no?

I don't mind porn sometimes, although I adore my wife and making love to her. I don't mind rubbish music, even though I try to create art sometimes.

In similar ways I don't mind Transformers or anything close to that. Pure, stupid, entertainment. And as such I hold no expectations whatsoever (ok, maybe I like my popcorn with plenty of butter but that's about it really).

Ps. Haven't seen it yet.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 26, 2009)

> Ps. Haven't seen it yet.



and you have to admit, it's wonderful to be able to have firm unshakeable opinions (either way) on a film like transformers without seeing it.

that's the value of tat - you absolutely know what you are going to get. leave your brain at the door, along with your artistic integrity.


----------



## nikolas (Jun 26, 2009)

Not unshakeable, but certainly firm and very close to the truth, indeed! 

And I agree fully to what you say!


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 26, 2009)

stevenson-again @ Fri Jun 26 said:


> hello everyone,
> 
> first post here so i thought i'd set the tone by being highly opinionated...actually i have been reading this forum for ages but constantly had my registration rejected. SvK invited me to join literally years ago but that didn't work then either....hmmm
> 
> ...




Read my message above this and try to decipher what it means. 


This isn't about Art Film vs Hollywood. Not even close. So, your opinion, while well taken, is misguided as to the actual premise of the debate here.

As for this:



> anyway - i really wanted to ask - what on earth is wrong with a bit of unmitigated tat every now and then?



If it were every now and then...ok. It's the overwhelming majority of the studio films. That's the issue.




> there seems to be a body of opinion that everything is going downhill these days. i seem to recall hearing the same thing 30 years ago, 20 years ago and 10 years ago. its the same as the perennial argument about whether music was better in the 60's, 70's, 80's or god knows when.



Nope, that's not the argument. If you were on the front lines dealing with these issues you'd understand them better. (i.e. the market is continually narrowing to the point that it's utterly myopic at present -- and if you think writers and directors...and agents, managers, producers...aren't pissed about it, you're crazy)

Having said that: This is not about that tired internet/grumpy old man debate that you refer to. You'll notice that you have omitted the renaissance that cycled through those years. Happens every 20 years by my math. Which means we SHOULD be on the verge of another...just, I doesn't look likely.

The point is this: In no other time has it been as hard to get a good movie made. 

BTW -- Slumdog was an anomaly. And... the script sucked ass. But I do understand the psychology behind why people liked it. 

....Sigh.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 26, 2009)

stevenson-again @ Fri Jun 26 said:


> ...take another 'summer blockbuster' - hancock. it's not the worlds greatest movie i grant you, but its not the worlds worst either. plus there were some wonderful unexpected touches in there that to me didn't feel like a bunch of producers thinking about merchandising and being down wiv de kidz.




Eesh...read the "original" script. It's a different movie.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 26, 2009)

I dunno I see tons of great movies everywhere..just have to look.

A boy and his Shoe (cuaron)
The Hobbit
Where the Wild Things Are
Alice in Wonderland
Whatever Works (not woody allens greatest I here but Im still interested)
The Latest Batmans
Pixar Films
Judd Apatow Comedies
Inglorious Basterds
Sam Mendes latest looks good

Just a couple off the top of my head that have been good lately


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 26, 2009)

Lex @ Fri Jun 26 said:


> Still didnt cacth Transformers2...but I want to see it...and dont expect anything more then loud french horns and big ass robots running around...
> 
> Just out of curiousity, since we r all composers here, considering the very strong opinions here, how many of you would say "no thank you" in hypotetical case you were offered to score Transformers 2?
> 
> aLex




Not the point.

Now I'll spell out the point: The dudes creating these movies don't believe in them. They themselves are pissed by how shitty they are...and would rather create something GOOD. Thanks to the ideas in this thread, they can't. 

It's clear to me, reading this thread, that several folks don't understand what's going on behind closed doors and/or on the front lines. Not that I expect everyone to know. If you think everyone is on board, you're fucking crazy...

That's wasn't aimed at you Lex.  Generally speaking.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 26, 2009)

"you old guys don't get it"
"art must reinvent itself"
"dumb movies are fun sometimes"
"these movies are really successful with young, wired people"
"there have always been dumb movies"
"Green Day has been retailing the same retreaded-punk music for 20 years"

duh.

We all understand unambitious / low entertainment. There is always, and has always been plenty of that about, along with old geezers gasping, "in my day, things were better...." Scanning the all-time worldwide box office ("Titanic" at the top), one sees very few films along the lines of "Babette's Feast."

What I personally would enjoy more would be all that cool imagery and Megan Fox and what-not leavened with a bit more bite, irony, pain, rivalry, or atavism (or whatever). I think the combination would generate a more amusing, intriguing, maybe multi-level screenplay. Movies are so unbelievably safe these days (except for violence). 

A movie can be self-consciously "dumb" or intellectually unambitious and still be, at least, clever.

That's all I'm requesting; a bit more. I don't expect that film -- a popular medium -- suddenly will transform itself into Great Art for Pedantic Dilettantes.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 26, 2009)

JohnG @ Fri Jun 26 said:


> Well Alex, as there appears to be no shortage of composers willing to score "Revenge of the Caged Furious Ninjas VI," I doubt that the release of "Transformers 3" will be held up by the inability to find a composer.
> 
> That said, the best action movies and series ("Die Hard" and maybe "Lethal Weapon") combine a large amount of tat with yearnings and mistakes that resonate in real life and that raise the film experience above the predictable. Petty vanity in the hero, rivalries among the good guys for credit and money/booty, romantic antagonism and divorce, arrogance or lying in the "good" characters, grumpiness or irritability, disappointment and loss -- these elevate movies from "Toy Story" to "Alien" to "Raiders" to "Harry Potter" to [anything else by Pixar] to whatever.
> 
> I don't see anyone quarreling with explosions and running around and special effects -- hot diggity! I think instead what people deplore is spending $50-$200 million on a picture but failing to season the action with honest dilemmas, suffering and pain that run beyond teenage drives for sex and a car; kinks in the characters that actually can move or upset the audience, and raise a movie from good to great.




Exactly...


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 26, 2009)

JohnG @ Fri Jun 26 said:


> "Babette's Feast."
> 
> .



Just saw this a couple weeks ago for the first time, so good.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 26, 2009)

Just forget about these combinations:

- Intelligent story + really big screen/outrageous popcorn prices/big audience

- Subtlety + really big screen/outrageous popcorn prices/big audience

- Fantastic actors as leads + really big screen/outrageous popcorn prices/big audience

- Adult plot/themes + really big screen/outrageous popcorn prices/big audience

And welcome these:

- Intelligent story + 40-inch flatscreen/cozy sofa/home-made goodies to eat

- Subtlety + 40-inch flatscreen/cozy sofa/home-made goodies to eat

- Fantastic actors as leads + 40-inch flatscreen/cozy sofa/home-made goodies to eat

- Adult plot/themes + 40-inch flatscreen/cozy sofa/home-made goodies to eat


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 26, 2009)

stevenson-again @ Fri Jun 26 said:


> raise a movie from good to great??
> 
> man - i don't want to go to a film like transformers and be forced to concede there was ANYTHING intelligent about it. that's half the point of the film - it's vapid nonsense.



It's too bad you don't understand the discussion and instead choose to use extremes. Nobody is implying TRANS should be an art film or socially conscious. We're talking "primal" stakes that allow us to give a shit what happens. THAT'S IT. 

This is movie 101.



> seriously you gotta see this film on the level at which it was aimed.



That's not where it started out...that's how it ended up.


----------



## john rodriguez (Jun 26, 2009)

kid-surf @ Fri Jun 26 said:


> Now I'll spell out the point: The dudes creating these movies don't believe in them. They themselves are pissed by how shitty they are...and would rather create something GOOD. Thanks to the ideas in this thread, they can't.
> 
> It's clear to me, reading this thread, that several folks don't understand what's going on behind closed doors and/or on the front lines. Not that I expect everyone to know. If you think everyone is on board, you're [email protected]#king crazy...



When I was in school I had a teacher who was an orchestrator on a big budget pile of garbage action movie with an A-list composer who had a good relationship with the producer on the film. This producer was well known for having a very extravagant art collection despite producing mindless films. At the scoring stage this composer and the producer were watching the playback of one of the scenes and the composer turned to the producer and said "My God, you're a well read, cultured guy with an appreciation for art, how can you keep making this shit?" The producer grinned and replied "I make shit so I can buy art."


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 26, 2009)

JohnG @ Fri Jun 26 said:


> "you old guys don't get it"
> "art must reinvent itself"
> "dumb movies are fun sometimes"
> "these movies are really successful with young, wired people"
> ...




Exactly...



Said another way: If you (audience) are MORE invested in what happens, why the heck would that upset you? Clearly, a well written script doesn't telegraph it's themes and rub them in your face. 

Judging from some of the comments here I would imagine folks responses would be "Man that was WAY better, but I don't know why"

Again for those not paying attention: The "story" has been stripped out of several of these popcorn summer flicks. The writer wrote it, the studio subsequently stripped it out. Hence the writer doesn't like the film and feels it was ruined. Follow?

So don't assume you're necessarily on their side...nor the director's. I know for certain that a particular studio bullied a particular director in such a way were he threw his hands up and said, more or less "I give up...you win...I'll do it your way so that you don't pull me off the movie".


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 26, 2009)

john rodriguez @ Fri Jun 26 said:


> kid-surf @ Fri Jun 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Now I'll spell out the point: The dudes creating these movies don't believe in them. They themselves are pissed by how shitty they are...and would rather create something GOOD. Thanks to the ideas in this thread, they can't.
> ...





Good story...


Right, some of these folks are far smarter than they first let on. I've been privy to some candid talk (because I've be dealing with high level producers and such) that would have blown my mind just two years ago. And this is after having been around industry folks for 15+ years. Once you're in someone's office talking movies (to write one for them), the candid conversations really open your eyes as to what's actually taking place. The illusions and so forth...

That story does a nice job of explaining one of them...


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 26, 2009)

> It's clear to me, reading this thread, that several folks don't understand what's going on behind closed doors and/or on the front lines. Not that I expect everyone to know. If you think everyone is on board, you're fucking crazy...



don't be so sure that there aren't those of us who don't know what is going on behind closed doors. personally speaking, i could talk in just a jaded a fashion about a whole range of productions and i have plenty of colleagues with absolute horror stories to tell.

there are 2 issues: 
1. that in a film as preposterous as something like transformers there should be any pretense of intellectual value.

2. that the kind of guff transformers represents is becoming the norm.

i don't think slumdog millionaire IS an anomaly. value for investment films like make much more money per dollar invested than massive blockbuster. 

there is of course a case for other types of films that have a premise where there is the possibility of building in a plot, and making us care something for the characters. and i enjoy them too - but we can have a laugh at things that exist merely to be a spectacle too - provided that they really are.



> If it were every now and then...ok. It's the overwhelming majority of the studio films. That's the issue.



i guess where you sit can colour your perspective. i grant its not a great situation, but it really isn't the only one. hollywood is not the only place that makes films. however....



> The point is this: In no other time has it been as hard to get a good movie made


. 

now that i can't argue with.

i think most of us are aware that at a great many times we are called on work on rubbish in which the concept of artistic value has to make way for the concept of application of craft. i am about to embark on just such an adventure late summer. we all sit around laughing about the monster we are helping construct but all of us would leave the industry if that was all there ever was on offer. i went to a screening of shooting dogs presented by the director who either had just done or was about to do basic instinct 2. no prizes for guessing which film funded the other, but you'll never guess which film got the greatest return on the investment....or maybe you will...


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 26, 2009)

> Again for those not paying attention: The "story" has been stripped out of several of these popcorn summer flicks. The writer wrote it, the studio subsequently stripped it out. Hence the writer doesn't like the film and feels it was ruined. Follow?



of course. when that happens it can ruin a film that could have been so much better. certainly that happens way more than it should.

So don't assume you're necessarily on their side...nor the director's. I know for certain that a particular studio bullied a particular director in such a way were he threw his hands up and said, more or less "I give up...you win...I'll do it your way so that you don't pull me off the movie".

when that happens the directors name is always changed to the same alias....what is it again?


----------



## spectrum (Jun 26, 2009)

Brian Ralston @ Wed Jun 24 said:


> You guys need to go rent the film *THE TV SET*. Jake Kasdan directed and the entire film is pretty much taken from real things that have happened to him or those around him in the industry.
> 
> And the only reason it did not get a bigger release was because it got caught up in the ThinkFilm debacle last year. Then it got dumped to DVD and Showtime.
> 
> But seriously...go rent it, netflix it, etc... it is good, funny...and based on actual events, sometimes word for word.


Yeah...that's a great one. 

Another one along the same lines is Christopher Guest's first film: *"The Big Picture"*

Martin Short is pretty funny in this film as an agent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF5qtoNC2l0

Both of these films should be required watching for anyone in the business.


----------



## Joseph Burrell (Jun 27, 2009)

I'm sorry, but I think Michael Bay is shit. Someone said, if something better was on, would you go see it. Well, there are better movies on. And I remember when the first one came out. Well I was sitting mid-theatre watching Live Free and Die Hard. Infinitely better movie, although no oscar winner in its own right. I'd rather go see Up again or Drag Me to Hell rather than watch this mess. After combing Netflix for years watching independants and art house flicks, I'll take those any day over mindnumbing explosions and retarded scripts. It pains me to know this gets all the attention, while films like Away We Go go largely unnoticed. Such is the way of the world.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 27, 2009)

gsilbers @ Thu Jun 25 said:


> BTW i heard that transformers 2 started shooting w/o a script. >8o
> but that could be another stupid rumor.



Was probably 'second unit' grabbing some location coverage. Nobody starts shooting w/o a script. There was a script.



gsilbers @ Thu Jun 25 said:


> also in the news they mentioned that the 2 jive talking "brother bots" was considered racist by some because it was too stereotypical.



File that under: The screenwriters didn't write that...wasn't in their script.


Keep in mind that some (sought after) screenwriters initially decline to write a particular film - even several times. Eventually the studio throws enough money (millions, 5-10 Mil) at said screenwriters (whomever they may be) that they finally agree to write the film. Then...when they see the film...they hate it, think it's a piece of shit. Doesn't match what they wrote (whomever they may be).


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 27, 2009)

> don't be so sure that there aren't those of us who don't know what is going on behind closed doors.



I didn't...otherwise I would have used the word "everyone".



> there are 2 issues:
> 1. that in a film as preposterous as something like transformers there should be any pretense of intellectual value.



Then...



> ...there is of course a case for other types of films that have a premise where there is the possibility of building in a plot, and making us care something for the characters.



You appear to have very little (no?) sense of "story/plot" and/or the craft of screenwriting (Please don't tell me you are an executive!  ). If you can convince just one (working) screenwriter to agree with this philosophy of yours I'll lick the bottom of your shoes...after you walk though the sewer. Frankly, I'm shocked to hear that you've gone to filmschool with statements like that. They honestly never focused on screenwriting/story 101?

To put it into musical terms...what you said amounts to: "There is of course a case for other types of music where there is the possibility of building melody/harmony, and making us care something for the music"

Hint: Plot is the REASON to tell ANY story, plot IS story...film or otherwise. So, I'm really unclear as to what you're suggesting. Maybe this will help you understand plot:

_"In fiction, the plot is a sequence of interrelated events arranged to form a logical pattern and achieve an intended effect.[1] Along with character, setting, theme, and style, plot is considered one of the fundamental components of fiction.[2] Aristotle wrote in Poetics that mythos (plot) is the most important element of storytelling."_

Screw Aristotle!!! Right..? :D



> i don't think slumdog millionaire IS an anomaly. value for investment films like make much more money per dollar invested than massive blockbuster.



If you rephrase that, I may be able to decipher your message. I don't want to assume.



> i guess where you sit can colour your perspective. i grant its not a great situation, but it really isn't the only one. hollywood is not the only place that makes films. however....



Are you sure you work in the industry (indie or studio)? Agreed, Hollywood isn't the only place to make a movie. Yet, please (pretty please) let me know who these indie folks are who are NOT looking for a low budget version of the same thing Hollywood asks for. I'd love to meet them and work on something! Sure, we can point to the Danny Boyle', the Gus Van Sant' types who can pretty much make whatever they want, but for the guys who aren't sought after (which is 95% of those working) it's fairly bleak out there. Everyone is asking for 3, maybe 4 types of movies...that's it. 

*Having said that, if you're not located in the US that comment will make more sense to me. Here in the US it's 3, maybe 4 types of movies and that's it. Remember, what you're seeing at the theater "now" is representative of what got greenlit at minimum, 2 years ago. Things have changed in that two years on the front lines. Composers are always 2-3-4 years behind the curve, considering they are post production.




> "The point is this: In no other time has it been as hard to get a good movie made."
> 
> now that i can't argue with.



Well, it's the paramount point...so please write it down. 




> of course. when that happens it can ruin a film that could have been so much better. certainly that happens way more than it should.



At this point you're agreeing with the paramount issues. Right, that's exactly the issue.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 27, 2009)

spectrum @ Fri Jun 26 said:


> Brian Ralston @ Wed Jun 24 said:
> 
> 
> > You guys need to go rent the film *THE TV SET*. Jake Kasdan directed and the entire film is pretty much taken from real things that have happened to him or those around him in the industry.
> ...




THE TV SET is on netflix as an instant "play" deal. Gonna watch it this weekend. Sounds funny. Commiserating keeps me sane in this industry.

Watched the Martin Short clip. Funny! I've had that exact meeting several times (only, sans drugs). The "on the nose" aspect is how the agent is so "agent-y" that he's got no self-perspective.

Having said that: I played it for my wife. She felt it was funny. But then we got into a discussion about client vs. agent and all the idiosyncrasies in both directions. 

It's true - clients don't wan to see their agent's name in the trades...they want to see their own name. Which is likely the reason a 'certain' agency never credits the agent in the trades, they don't say specifically who made the deal. The deal focuses on the MATERIAL and merely that the "agency" made the deal.

Having said that: The folks I've ended up dealing with aren't like Martin Short's character, they actually listen to what you're saying as opposed to constantly peering over your shoulder trying to spot someone more important to nuzzle up to.

*For those who feel I type too much -- simple solution -- don't read it!


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 27, 2009)

BTW -- Ned.

40"? Don't you mean 65"!!!? :mrgreen: o-[][]-o =o


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 27, 2009)

> Are you sure you work in the industry (indie or studio)? Agreed, Hollywood isn't the only place to make a movie. Yet, please (pretty please) let me know who these indie folks are who are NOT looking for a low budget version of the same thing Hollywood asks for. I'd love to meet them and work on something! Sure, we can point to the Danny Boyle', the Gus Van Sant' types who can pretty much make whatever they want, but for the guys who aren't sought after (which is 95% of those working) it's fairly bleak out there. Everyone is asking for 3, maybe 4 types of movies...that's it.
> 
> *Having said that, if you're not located in the US that comment will make more sense to me. Here in the US it's 3, maybe 4 types of movies and that's it. Remember, what you're seeing at the theater "now" is representative of what got greenlit at minimum, 2 years ago. Things have changed in that two years on the front lines. Composers are always 2-3-4 years behind the curve, considering they are post production.



in reverse order:

- i am not in the states no.
- i am aware, very keenly aware, that what we see in the cinema may have been green lit long ago. and in fact where i am based, keeping the green light going is often hard in itself, let alone getting it there.
- some projects may have been in development for a decade or even longer before actually getting made. a project i am hoping to be working on next year was first drafted in the mid-80s.
- sitting in hollywood it may seem to you that the totality of the film industry is there - but it really isn't. there is plenty of other things going on elsewhere that is just as appealing to work on (if you can get on them of course) - though maybe in a different way.
- it is, as you say pretty bleak out there. there are a number of reasons for that, but certainly one of the big ones is that in economic downturns investors become really risk averse.
- i am involved in the industry - i work primarily in TV but on the fringes of film. i have plenty of contacts within both worlds and i do have an idea of what is going on. but its not all hollywood. the contacts i have in that world sound like earthlings exploring another planet. from what i hear, hollywood is a completely insane and bizarre bubble.

but don't lets mix issues up:
1. the state of the film industry/hollywood
2. whether there is a place for a bit fluff and nonsense
3. whether everything or most things is now turned into fluff and nonsense
4. craftsman or punter.

they are all really good and interesting issues and worth debating if only to clarify ones own thoughts about them. but the OP was throwing out there that transformers 2 was a bit of a laugh, and my only regret is that my 2 daughters are undoubtedly going to prefer to see ice age 3 than megan f...i mean... big trucks turning into giant robots that blowup air craft carriers. its whether there should be a license for a film to suck plot-wise provided there is enough of a spectacle to justify the lack of story.


----------



## mjc (Jun 27, 2009)

woah! i just said i enjoyed the movie....i didn't expect such a reaction and debate from it!! :lol: 

I actually wanted the discussion to be about the haphazard score...but it seems to me people have taken the topic into their own hands...'sigh'  

Ahh there's always enough room for a good debate...but when it starts getting ugly...that's when we should pull our heads out of our arses and actually get on with what we're meant to be doing...talking and helping each other out with MUSIC!!!  

Not saying that this was getting ugly, but I remember reading over a forum about the state of of film music was headed or something, with that quote from Goldsmith, and people started to get unnecessarily defensive and on their high horse. I was disappointed. I'm personally not a fan of seeing fellow composers locking horns on a site when it's about 'Musicians Helping Musicians'...there's a difference between a healthy debate and people flexing there arrogance and egos at each other. Since when did we know everything about everything??

Sorry for going off topic! It just came into my head as I was writing


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 28, 2009)

stevenson-again @ Sat Jun 27 said:


> its whether there should be a license for a film to suck plot-wise provided there is enough of a spectacle to justify the lack of story.



That's the primary issue being discussed...

My opinion is, "no". 

W/o plot I see no reason to tell a story (plot = story), and neither do the majority of screenwriters whose names are on these plot-averse films. I'll say it once more: plot was omitted in order to fit in hackneyed set-pieces.

But, you know, you (along with Hollywood) win this debate due to these crap films making money. Seeing as money is the only goal. 

Although keep this in mind: No taste-maker producer, screenwriter, director, actor (etc), believes that to be the path to great filmmaking. 

--and --

If we were here discussing a LOUD score, for the sake of being loud, it would be slammed on this forum. 

--and-- 

A decently written score that had been cannibalized to the point that a GOOD composer no longer believed in it, that would be a shame, as well it would be slammed here (the tactic not the composer). Despite the fact that the layman may get a boner over how LOUD it is.

To the point: Even a "fluff" film can be well drawn. 

Me? I'm always on the artist's side. WE are the one's who evolve the medium, not executives and marketing suit people. On the deepest psychological level, an artist's job is discovery, at the very least, exploration. This is simply artists rightfully attempting to evolve mankind as a species. We've got to learn something new, or, literally, we'll die as a species. It is innate for an artist to reject crap...whomever created us wishes for us to EVOLVE.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 28, 2009)

Two thoughts: 

- Isn't it a bit of a con that people/reviewers look at this film as something more than a kids' flick? Would the critique be as severe if this film was marketed as a dark Barney meets Elmo?

- Do we put too much value on expensive sound design and CGI fx? Couldn't you get the same audio jolts by visiting a car pound (you know, where they smash cars) and recording the sounds? I prefer sound design that has some subtlety in it, where the sound helps/gives clues to the story (as in Coen brothers' films). And really cool CGI might be one that translates all the emotions that we are capable of sharing with our face. 

When I saw Up, for the first minute, I was disappointed because I could see a few lines on the white screen. The blemishes in the screen ruined the 3D effect; I could see them everytime the image contained lighter color tones. But soon enough, I forgot about the lines, and started to really enjoy the 3D effect and the amazing graphic work - why? Because the story was so good.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 28, 2009)

> - Isn't it a bit of a con that people/reviewers look at this film as something more than a kids' flick? Would the critique be as severe if this film was marketed as a dark Barney meets Elmo?



At first glance it seems so, but on second glance we decipher that WE (the adults) must be entertained as well. That's GREAT story telling. [I'd point to Star Wars, Iron Man, Simpsons, Up, etc.] 

My feeling is that a Tentpole studio movie should play on a universal level. 



> - When I saw Up, for the first minute, I was disappointed because I could see a few lines on the white screen. The blemishes in the screen ruined the 3D effect; I could see them everytime the image contained lighter color tones. But soon enough, I forgot about the lines, and started to really enjoy the 3D effect and the amazing graphic work - why? Because the story was so good.



Exactly...

That's when we forget we're watching a movie, we've been transported inside of the world of the movie. 

Give you an example: Watching a movie on a 5" screen. A great film will envelop us to the point that we've forgotten just how small the screen is, in fact, the screen size is irrelevant at this point, the "forth wall" doesn't exist, we no longer sense the edge of the screen...because...we've GOT to know what HAPPENS! We're dying to know!!! 

It's like a great song/piece of music: It should be a great whether it's played back on Genelec SoFits at Fox, or, on the mono speaker on your cell phone. The MATERIAL should translate. Same with film. I don't care what genre it is....

My opinion... :D


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 28, 2009)

i actually went and saw it.. wow i have to say. thats some serious filmmaking. 
its not until you work in hollywood doing crappy Tv shows and movies for years that you appreciate movies like this. its very well crafted imo, just the CGI with location shoots.. i mean, have u worked on programs like CAD or seen those CGI folks do this? a 5 minutes scene can take months!
plot wise was ok, same caliber as batman and whatnot. its cool, its a path to follow from start to end for everything to happen. its like a melody in a song, everything is attached to it, it got me involved in the movie so it did its job. it works. 
a lot of fukin action..

i have my gripes with the moive but overall.. its good.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 28, 2009)

gsilbers @ Mon Jun 29 said:


> same caliber as batman



You mean the Joel Schumacher ones?


----------



## José Herring (Jun 28, 2009)

[quote:7ccd507638="gsilbers @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:55 pm"]i actually went and saw it.. wow i have to say. thats some serious filmmaking. 
its not until you work in hollywood doing crappy Tv shows and movies for years that you appreciate movies like this. its very well crafted imo, just the CGI with location shoots.. i mean, have u worked on programs like CAD or seen those CGI folks do this? a 5 minutes scene can take months!
plot wise was ok, same caliber as batman and whatnot. its cool, its a path to follow from start to end for everything to happen. its like a melody in a song, everything is attached to it, it got me involved in the movie so it did its job.ò*   ¦d*   ¦e*   ¦f*   ¦g*   ¦h*   ¦i*   ¦j*   ¦k*   ¦l*   ¦m*   ¦n*   ¦o*   ¦p*   ¦q*   ¦r*   ¦s+   ¦t+   ¦u+   ¦v+   ¦w+   ¦x+   ¦y+   ¦z+   ¦{+   ¦|+   ¦}+   ¦~+   ¦


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 29, 2009)

Not me...

I'd rather work on something I could be proud of. 

Unless...unless the studio threw several million dollars at me. At which point, I'd still think the movie was a piece of shit.


----------



## midphase (Jun 29, 2009)

"there are 2 issues: 
1. that in a film as preposterous as something like transformers there should be any pretense of intellectual value."

Well, in a word...yes. As examples of other preposterous movies which have a pretense of intellectual value (or at least an attempt at coherence) I give you Star Trek, Iron Man and The Dark Knight.


"2. that the kind of guff transformers represents is becoming the norm. "

That is a bit of a subjective issue. It depends. If you put Wolverine, Terminator 4, Angels and Demons, Tranny 2, Land of the Lost, and Year Zero in that big tentpole group, then it appears as though the crap is outnumbering the good stuff (Star Trek, Up, Hangover). One of the things that I definitely see happening is that mid-level good films seem to be thinning out in favor of the ultra-high budget (over $100mil) and the low and unfortunately ill-promoted movies (sub $10mil).

Either way, it doesn't hurt to ask for better quality films from the studios by voting with our wallets.


----------



## midphase (Jun 29, 2009)

PS.

If you want to have your cake and eat it too (I don't advocate this), you could do what a friend of mine does. Buy a ticket to a smaller but more critically well received film, and then go see the big budget brainfart one. Assuming the two films start around the same time, you shouldn't have a problem doing that.

PPS.

Don't try it at Arclight or other movie theatre with reserved seating since you'll get busted!


----------



## stevenson-again (Jun 29, 2009)

> That's the primary issue being discussed...
> 
> My opinion is, "no"


. 

good for you. i totally respect that. actually there is crap meter below i don't go either. i'll bet it's probably pretty close to yours despite my taking a contrary position.



> W/o plot I see no reason to tell a story (plot = story), and neither do the majority of screenwriters whose names are on these plot-averse films. I'll say it once more: plot was omitted in order to fit in hackneyed set-pieces.
> 
> But, you know, you (along with Hollywood) win this debate due to these crap films making money. Seeing as money is the only goal.



well this is where there is another debate...as a proportion of invested buck, some of these big summer blockbusters aren't actually as profitable as some the lower budget ones. it's an important point. yes they can make more money overall, but 1 big blockbuster can actually be less profitable than a slate of 10 costing in total the same to make. when the big blockbusters come they really do need be sure they will appeal as broadly as possible or there is every chance they will lose money. if it was YOUR money you were putting in you would probably be just as concerned.



> Although keep this in mind: No taste-maker producer, screenwriter, director, actor (etc), believes that to be the path to great filmmaking.



i agree with this. i have been involved in writing for schlock myself and there is a self-knowing atmosphere of 'we all know this is shit but the kids are going to love it.' in fact, after the summer i am going to be working on a second helping of it and i do agree - with just a tiny little more effort, the script could be sooo much better. there are so many holes in it and some of the lines are so cheesy the script resembles an attempt to make fondue in a colander.

however, the reports back from transformers is that whatever the process to get it there, its quite good fun. on that basis i would see it if i had boys rather than girls - and view it for what it is, rather than what i think it should be.



> Well, in a word...yes. As examples of other preposterous movies which have a pretense of intellectual value (or at least an attempt at coherence) I give you Star Trek, Iron Man and The Dark Knight.



hang on a second - transformers is a transcendent level of preposterousness. you really can't compare star trek, angels and demons or even the Dark Knight with transformers. we talk about the suspension of disbelief - how much more disbelief do you have to suspend for transformers than for angles and demons or star trek for that matter?

bringing things back OT, often these sillier films get really good scores - though i have no doubt transformers is highly dodgy. but then it probably doesn't need to work too hard...


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 29, 2009)

midphase @ 29/6/2009 said:


> Buy a ticket to a smaller but more critically well received film, and then go see the big budget brainfart one. Assuming the two films start around the same time, you shouldn't have a problem doing that.



Thanks! :D :D :D :D


----------



## SvK (Jun 29, 2009)

Turn on your blender, your alarm clock, turn on all 3 of your TV's set them to different channels, crank them to 11, make your dogs bark, and now put a 90 piece orchestra over all that.......

........jeez

SvK


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 29, 2009)

I am saddened by the following facts:

1.There's not enough film work for all the talented composers on this forum, so they initiate and participate in (I'm being generous here) graduate school debates on the definitive nature of art.

2. I am underemployed, so I read the whole damn thing.

Tip for the day: if you like it, it's good. If you don't, it's bad.

Tip for tomorrow: if you think it's art, it's art. If you don't, it's not art.

Tip for next week: if you're not sure it's art, find someone erudite, or at least
possessed with sufficient verbal felicity, to tell you your opinion.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 29, 2009)

Larry, are you saying we shouldn't have the discussion but should just get on with composing? Or that this particular discussion is sophomoric? Both?

Personally, I find defining art / craft for oneself is actually very useful, even talking about its boundaries within the craft / commercial enterprise that is film music. As part of the toolkit of working with directors and producers, I find it quite useful to have thought about the boundaries, the function of film music, one's ambitions for a project and for one's career -- all of it. 

Hans Zimmer, for one, is extremely articulate and has quite a bit to say about these topic(s), so I take comfort that one of the most commercially successful artists alive seems to feel it's worth a thought or two.

And even if one is supposed to be writing, it's a great procrastination vehicle.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 29, 2009)

JohnG @ Mon Jun 29 said:


> Larry, are you saying we shouldn't have the discussion but should just get on with composing? Or that this particular discussion is sophomoric? Both?
> 
> Personally, I find defining art / craft for oneself is actually very useful, even talking about its boundaries within the craft / commercial enterprise that is film music. As part of the toolkit of working with directors and producers, I find it quite useful to have thought about the boundaries, the function of film music, one's ambitions for a project and for one's career -- all of it.
> 
> ...



Mostly the second, John....and here I thought I'd make that clear!

I don't think anyone contributing to the thread has been inarticulate, it just strikes me that these are matters of personal taste, and somewhat generational as well. I'd add 'moot' and 'discussed-to-death' as two other descriptors to accompany 'sophomoric'.

Hans gets interviewed a lot. It's slightly different.

I agree with you about the procrastination ploy, but since up 'til early this month I had spent months writing, producing and mixing a project, I'm willing to waste time. Case in point-here I am!

Nothing I said was aimed at anyone personally. John, btw, I loved 'a horrible experience of unbearable length'. It's been assigned to my default sayings page.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 29, 2009)

kid-surf @ Mon Jun 29 said:


> Not me...
> 
> I'd rather work on something I could be proud of.
> 
> Unless...unless the studio threw several million dollars at me. At which point, I'd still think the movie was a piece of [email protected]#t.




damn man, you are all over this and keep saying the same thing, just for reference.. 
what do you consider a good movie. list at least 5. 

this movie is amazingly hard to put together, the list of credits is huge with a humongous number of very talented artists doing their best work.
made over 200 million in a few days alone and you still say it sucks? 
that you prefer something more "deep" plot wise? 

did you MAKE a better film in which now Michael bay owes you something back?



i mean, i GOT to see you favorite list of films man, im not going to put down what you say just because you putting down other movies but i just got to see what are we talking about here. all this is very subjective, the only meter to gauge this subjectivity, sadly is money. which means someone went to see it, told someone else that it was good so they went to see it, and so on. 
there are also artsy films with "clever" plots and it fills a niche and imo i wish it where more leveled.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 29, 2009)

gsilbers @ Mon Jun 29 said:


> kid-surf @ Mon Jun 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Not me...
> ...



If the only way to judge how good a film is is by money then I guess Transformers is better than 99% of films released. Would you agree that it's better than 99% of the films you've seen?


----------



## JohnG (Jun 29, 2009)

Well, fair enough Larry. I don't disagree that it's a matter of opinion.

And your generational comment may have a lot in it as well; when I started at this I would have been happy to score dog food commercials and didn't take the "what is this all about" very seriously.

Now I do.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 29, 2009)

choc0thrax @ Mon Jun 29 said:


> gsilbers @ Mon Jun 29 said:
> 
> 
> > kid-surf @ Mon Jun 29 said:
> ...






not 99% of the movies i have seen but so far... better than these (200 or 16 thousand so far this year alone?)


http://www.imdb.com/List?tv=off&&heading=8%3BMovie%3B2009&&nav=/Sections/Years/2009/include-movies&&year=2009&&skip=200 (http://www.imdb.com/List?tv=off&amp;&amp;headin ... &amp;&amp;skip=200)


anyway.. so which movie is better? 

is it a matter of taste? duh.. of course.. so how do you define good or bad? 


not saying transformers2 was the bomb and its the best ever but better than those above or at least 99.9% of them.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 29, 2009)

JohnG @ Mon Jun 29 said:


> Well, fair enough Larry. I don't disagree that it's a matter of opinion.
> 
> And your generational comment may have a lot in it as well; when I started at this I would have been happy to score dog food commercials and didn't take the "what is this all about" very seriously.
> 
> Now I do.



I'd still be happy to score dog food commercials. I did a few of 'em in my career( along with hundreds of other union commercials, which is why I'm about to collect a pension). If you get any leads, woof 'em down my way.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 29, 2009)

gsilbers @ Mon Jun 29 said:


> choc0thrax @ Mon Jun 29 said:
> 
> 
> > gsilbers @ Mon Jun 29 said:
> ...



You can't say Transformers is better until you've watched all 17 thousand of those films so I'd get crackin on that now it could take a while.


----------



## billval3 (Jun 29, 2009)

gsilbers @ Mon Jun 29 said:


> this movie is amazingly hard to put together, the list of credits is huge with a humongous number of very talented artists doing their best work.
> made over 200 million in a few days alone and you still say it sucks?
> that you prefer something more "deep" plot wise?



And it makes it that much more amazing that it could suck so bad, doesn't it? I'm sorry, but the fact that it made over 200 million only says something about the sheep mentality of so many Americans.

For crying out loud, it's not about being deep. For me, it's about something that will actually hold my attention. I could not even sit through the last one. And this is not coming from a guy who necessarily prefers what you might call "artsy" films. I watch more than my fair share of action and romantic comedies. I roll my eyes when I see some of the titles that come to my wife from Netflix. But I'd rather watch most of them than another installment of Transformers!


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 30, 2009)

> 1.There's not enough film work for all the talented composers on this forum, so they initiate and participate in (I'm being generous here) graduate school debates on the definitive nature of art.



Is that so...your crystal ball(s) tells you this?

Well, you get what you pay for around here. What, are we supposed to type up some ironclad dissertation? I'll speak for myself and say that I'd rather expend that brain power on the very thing you've accused us of not having --> MY WORK.



> 2. I am underemployed, so I read the whole damn thing.



Seems wise to go find a gig rather than accuse us of not having one..or several. Presume much? Let me guess, you're one of those guys that complains about how others spend their money, yes? 



> Tip for next week: if you're not sure it's art, find someone erudite, or at least possessed with sufficient verbal felicity, to tell you your opinion.



That may or may not be directed at me: All I can tell you is that I obviously don't care what an unemployed (nor employed) composer thinks of my ability to articulate my opinionated opinions. 

TIP: Don't presume to know what everyone is working on. 

TIP: Your post is akin to an uninvited guest walking into a Bar with a sign that clearly reads "Assholes Welcome" who then complains about the assholes inside. I mean? There's the door -->


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 30, 2009)

> damn man, you are all over this and keep saying the same thing,



Meanwhile, you've yet to decipher the message...imagine that.



> just for reference.. what do you consider a good movie.



Sorry, I don't react to orders. Though, I will say that I consider a good movie to, at the very least, possess a sensible plot. Don't intend to lower my standards below that fundamental story requirement any time soon. Which also means; I'll never write a film for Michael Bay. So be it...



> this movie is amazingly hard to put together, the list of credits is huge with a humongous number of very talented artists doing their best work. made over 200 million in a few days alone and you still say it sucks?
> that you prefer something more "deep" plot wise?



At this point I suspect I'm discussing "story/plot" with someone under the age of 25 who's never read a book, newspaper, or anything else in which words form coherent ideas. 

But why let you off the hook...

1) No extra credit for 'hard to make': a film is well laid or it's not.

2) Long list of credits means this: many talented individuals worked on said film. I'll draw no conclusion from that. 

3) Box office numbers mean this: people paid to see it. I'll draw no conclusion from that.

4) Deep: It's utterly clear to me that you do not know the first thing about "plot". Plot is neither inherently deep (we may instead choose words like; sophisticated/complex/esoteric etc) nor is it inherently rudimentary/pedestrian. 



> did you MAKE a better film in which now Michael bay owes you something back?



Perhaps you'll explain to me what he'd owe me, and why. (rhetorical)

Otherwise, if you're attempting to cleverly point out that he's more successful than I, obviously he is. This is no great detective work on your part - and - it's irrelevant.

Yes, this discussion is beginning to bore me. When one is unable to decipher the discussion, well, there's not much to discuss.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 30, 2009)

Kid, don't waste your time! For some people, the only benchmark is $$$, quantity over quality. Kinda explains McDonalds.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 30, 2009)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> Kid, don't waste your time! For some people, the only benchmark is $$$, quantity over quality. Kinda explains McDonalds.



and yet, mc Donald's is high end and considered "good" in other countries.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 30, 2009)

What can I say to that? :roll: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 30, 2009)

ok, so what determines a GOOD or QUALITY movie.. ? 

and dont just say a "clever" plot! or "something that its not dumb"

if transformers is a BAD movie or with a "Stupid" plot then please name a movie that is "good".

are u guys getting the idea that "good" "stupid plot" etc is all subjective? that you nor I can say it is so. 

you are putting down the work of hundreds of talented people just because you think "its not a clever plot" "it sucks" etc.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 30, 2009)




----------



## SvK (Jun 30, 2009)

What was that line in "When Harry Met Sally"?

"People with bad taste, don't know they have bad taste!"

Making a case for Transormers 2, is akin to defending an Elvis Velvet Painting against a Picasso.

.......that's not fair though 'cause kids like velvet paintings. 

SvK


----------



## SvK (Jun 30, 2009)

It's a movie for little kids, so debating taste is asanine.

And you can't rightly compare it to Dark Knight or Iron-Man since those movies are pop-corn movies for grown-ups.......

SvK


----------



## SvK (Jun 30, 2009)

Ahhhhh.....the movie is rated PG-13 .........

Do 13 year olds still like velvet paintings, or does that go out the window at age 6?

......hey I'm a snob, I'll admit, also the movie is cleaning up, schlock sells always will.

SvK


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 30, 2009)

kid-surf @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> > 1.There's not enough film work for all the talented composers on this forum, so they initiate and participate in (I'm being generous here) graduate school debates on the definitive nature of art.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My kid, how you do go on ( yawn). Not exactly the Miles Davis of verbiage, are you?

None of what I said in the first place was specifically addressed to you, but as you find a need to personalize it...this is. You appear fatuous and in love with the sound of your own typed voice. Get on witcha bad self, and do cut down on the caffeine!


----------



## billval3 (Jun 30, 2009)

gsilbers @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> ok, so what determines a GOOD or QUALITY movie.. ?
> 
> and dont just say a "clever" plot! or "something that its not dumb"
> 
> ...



Why on earth do you think filmmakers or writers go to school? Some may just care about what sells best, but definitely not all. To say that this is subjective is true, but I would disagree that it's subjective in the extreme way you seem to be thinking. It doesn't have to be black or white. I would agree that there are exceptions to every rule and yet have no problem saying there are general guidelines for what makes a good film. Here are some I can come up with, maybe others can add their own:

1. the shots are in focus and framed in such a way that engages the viewer and helps to serve the story
2. the shots are lit in a way that both allows us to see what happens and enhances the story
3. the sound is both audible and helps to tell the story in a non-distracting way
4. the music engages the listener and enhances the story
5. the dialogue is understandable, realistic, and enhances the story
6. the characters are engaging and go through some sort of transformation
7. the plot is coherent and draws the viewer into the film
8. things like action sequences and special effects are both enjoyable and serve the story in some way

Do you notice that all of this comes back to "story?" That's what those of us who are involved in filmmaking are ideally trying to do: tell a good story. You seem to be arguing that the story doesn't matter. I guess without the story, it's more like a riding a roller coaster or something. They can be fun, but would anyone want to ride one for two hours? It's just like the comment about it being a 2 hour trailer. One could argue that trailers are an art form in and of themselves. But trailers are INTENDED to be short!



gsilbers @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> you are putting down the work of hundreds of talented people just because you think "its not a clever plot" "it sucks" etc.



I have no doubt that a lot of talented people worked on Transformers 2. I'm also guessing, like kid already pointed out, that a lot of those talented people would rather be working on something better.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 30, 2009)

_"you are putting down the work of hundreds of talented people just because you think 'its not a clever plot' 'it sucks' etc."_ -- gsilbers

Hi Gsilbers, I know from your posts that you are active in the industry and clearly a smart guy but, judging by this response, I think it possible that you are missing the point of the criticism in this thread. Ironically, that excellent work of hundreds of people to which you refer -- effects, makeup, lighting, music, sounddesign, CGI, you name it -- is exactly what drives the dismay that some in this thread and the critics apparently feel.

It's the gap between the popular embrace and the withering critical evaluation of the movie that I think motivates many posting here. As kid-surf and others have said, they are disappointed because, with relatively minor alterations to "event" movies like this, there could be more of a story than there is, the plot could be less incomprehensible and at least follow its own "rules," there could be a reason why a character is singled out as the saviour of mankind, etc. -- but if the reviews are half right, none of that is the case. Instead, films like these more and more become a mere succession of set-piece effects-dominated "cabooms" that nobody even attempts to knit together.

This lost opportunity, to some, is all the more galling _especially_ because the effects etc. are so good and _especially_ because so much money was spent making and advertising the film.

EDIT:
Finally, watching movies like this siphon off more and more dollars (and Euros, Yen, Pounds, etc.) is not without consequence. Their dominance and financial success (actual and perceived) drain resources in a direction that is unhelpful to any but the best-established in the industry, further contributing to a "winner take all" situation that already makes it very hard for new craft practitioners -- including composers -- to get a chance to show what they can do.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 30, 2009)

Ditto... billval3, Ned, and SVK.

billval3 -- I too do not enjoy 'all' of the classics. Simply feel that 'some' don't hold up. Some do, some don't. Depends. You and I aren't the only folks who feel this way...plenty of writers and directors feel the same way.

gsilbers -- Attempting to explain the fundamental aspect of story/plot to a naive individual like yourself is akin to attempting to explain music theory over a text chat with a 13 year old. You just ain't gonna get it. Clearly.

CLUE: Transformers trampled universal story elements that are as old and as established as the bible - and which have been employed in every movie or story with a solid plot over the thousands of years stories have been told.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 30, 2009)

NYC Composer @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> My kid, how you do go on ( yawn). Not exactly the Miles Davis of verbiage, are you?



No, I'm not, particularly when chit-chatting on a friggn forum. Likewise, you are not the Miles Davis of anything at all.

Having said that: Plenty of folks who know what's what are confident I am a solid screenwriter. S'good enough for me. 

Now...why do you continue to read what I type and/or this thread. You are free to stop reading any time you'd like. 



NYC Composer @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> None of what I said in the first place was specifically addressed to you, but as you find a need to personalize it...this is. You appear fatuous and in love with the sound of your own typed voice. Get on witcha bad self, and do cut down on the caffeine!



Cliche much? I don't drink any caffeine if you must know. You wish to universally slam everyone in this thread, yet not be held accountable for it...I get it. You label me fatuous yet you're an unemployed composer telling me to get on witmy bad self...gotcha. 

Look, post or don't post, read or don't read. But I'll continue living my life the way I see fit. No offense brutha...


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 30, 2009)

John,

In an otherwise well articulated post, I would tweak this one idea: *"Instead, films like these more and more become a mere succession of set-piece effects-dominated "cabooms" that nobody even attempts to knit together."* And maybe it's semantics, but...

...Writers (in general) attempt to knit these elements into a cohesive ironclad plot. Problems arise when the studio gives said writer a sea of notes to employ that make little sense, and effectively ruin the plot. This can go on draft after draft until the once solid screenplay leaps from plot hole to plot hole. 

Having said that: In the best situations the studio's notes make the film better. Not implying that it doesn't unfold that way, too. Clearly not the case with this film. There's a reason for the divide between critics (which include other screenwriters and directors) and the general public.



> EDIT:
> Finally, watching movies like this siphon off more and more dollars (and Euros, Yen, Pounds, etc.) is not without consequence. Their dominance and financial success (actual and perceived) drain resources in a direction that is unhelpful to any but the best-established in the industry, further contributing to a "winner take all" situation that already makes it very hard for new craft practitioners -- including composers -- to get a chance to show what they can do.



This is the second time this philosophy has been expressed. Perhaps the message will be deciphered through your wording. Perhaps not.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 30, 2009)

The result is _as if_ nobody attempts to knit things together, which is what I should have said. No doubt an effort is made, but it's somehow thwarted.

Apologies all 'round.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 30, 2009)

kid-surf @ Tue Jun 30 said:


> NYC Composer @ Tue Jun 30 said:
> 
> 
> > My kid, how you do go on ( yawn). Not exactly the Miles Davis of verbiage, are you?
> ...



Insecure much, Mister Solid Screenwriter? Bad parental models?

Point by point refutations-gee. You must have been the star of your community college debate team.

I didn't slam anyone, I was commenting about the general direction of the thread, and made a rueful (AND self-deprecating) crack about the dearth of work for composers. YOU chose to personalize this, I merely responded.

And now, I'm done. Have the last clever, cutting word, and move on, Sparky.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 30, 2009)

Insecure -- Point was two fold: pay me and I'll fluff up my verbiage for ya, otherwise you'll continue to get exactly what you paid for -AND- Unless you're somebody who makes movies, I couldn't care less what you think of my verbiage. And now you're calling my parents into question? Fucking hilarious! 

I wasn't on the debate team, no...I was out surfing, fucking girls and getting high. No complaints. You? 

Well, your rueful comment is in a roundabout way a symptom of the film being discussed, believe it or not. And here you mention scoring dog food commercials. The irony.

It should be clear to you that I don't follow commands, whether you call me Sparky or not. If you're not enjoying this thread feel free to take a hike...just a suggestion. Or, feel free to add value.

Otherwise... apology accepted.


----------

