# Captain Philips score - what happened?



## Guy Rowland (Apr 16, 2014)

I'll do my best to avoid plot spoilers, but all my questions are about the final 15 minutes of the film.

Finally caught up with this terrific film. Masterful direction, script and cast. Score great, all doing its job nicely. Then just as the film is building to the big denouement...

United 93.

Specifically, the cue The End, which I must have played about 3,000 times and know every beat. There was John Powell's extraordinary conclusion to Greengrass' stunning 9/11 film, in all its unedited glory, playing out during Captain Philips for a good 5m30s of it its 5m50s running time, right up to just before the final chord.

Then the coda scene. Sounded familiar too, but think it was just that it was AWFULLY close to Hans Zimmer's Time, from Inception.

Then the film ended, and I realised I'd stopped watching it 15 minutes earlier because I got so distracted by what the hell was going on with the score. Dammit. Watched the credits - "The End" was credited of course, but nothing obvious was credited for the final cue. But then in the thank yous - a fairly prominent thank you credit to Hans Zimmer.

OK, so what's the story then? My guess - the final two scenes were temped with The End and Time, Greengrass totally wedded to both (including the one written for another film of his) but they decided on a soundalike for the latter as it might have just been too familiar to the filmgoing public. And Hans was super-gracious about them doing that. But - of course - all that's pure speculation on my part. Curious to know if anyone knows anything.

On a general point, was hugely disappointed that they went down that road. I don't suppose many were as taken out of the film as I was just cos I know those scores so well, but I'd have thought a better course of action would be to score something genuinely unique.

Henry Jackman was the credited composer, btw.


----------



## The Darris (Apr 16, 2014)

My guess is this was a case of director/producers being 'married to the temp.' We've all heard the horror stories in the past.


----------



## milesito (Apr 16, 2014)

Guy - I totally noticed the same thing and yes it was distracting to me. However the only thing distracting my fiancé was me freaking out about your very same observation by her side ... As I checked imdb and google in real time to try to figure out what was going on...sorry I don't have any more info....but I would be curious to hear from others.


----------



## Greg (Apr 16, 2014)

Agreed, it's pathetic. Killed the movie for me. I feel like there is more and more laziness in scores lately. "Just throw in a cue that does the job and wrap it up." mentality, instead of "lets try something different that will really move the audience."

Time sound-alike:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MPYQPzxc4&list=PLKjwRpQidz5vXsKozi_jPwR4XQ_Omo0n4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MPYQP ... 4XQ_Omo0n4)


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 17, 2014)

This is a real shocker. And in the absence of any other known info, one can only blame one person for it - Paul Greengrass.

Although I've not been a fan of the Bourne series - which somehow I managed to watch THREE of despite never liking any of them - when Greengrass is given the right material he is clearly one of the finest directors working today. United 93 is one of the greatest films of the past couple of decades, managing to transcend the usual barriers of narrative cimena into a verite experience where you feel that, despite the impossibility, you're watching a real time documentary of the events unfold. I'm in awe of that talent, and also of those of his collaborators, notably John Powell. I remember not even being aware that there WAS a score first time I saw it - I'd become that immersed into the film. But when I listened to the score I realised just how much work it had done, how excellent it was itself.

And Captain Philips evoked some of the same feeling - not perhaps quite at that same giddy level, but it was clearly excellent filmmaking. But then, at the 11th hour, Greengrass blows it completely. If one of Noah's rock monsters had risen out of the sea with US Navy stripes on his rocky arms, it couldn't have taken me out of the film any more. Rather than evoking the spirit of that earlier film, suddenly he blatantly steals it. I can't think of another example of a film actually thieving a cue from another, not as homage or reference, but under the counter hoping no-one would notice. And stealing from himself, effectively, makes it seem even more artistically bankrupt.

Is this what composers here aspire to? To score a film of this quality and yet in the climactic scene, the sequence to which the entire film has built, be told "actually we just wanna use a cue someone else wrote for a different film for that, it worked great last time?" It's not an artistic use of a commercial track, it's just banality. And, I suspect, this isn't the first time this has happened to Henry Jackman either - X Men First Class was another film where the music totally took me out of it, which sounded like it had been tempted to death. I didn't blame him there either.

Given the success of the film commercially and critically (it really is a great film), I hardly think Paul Greengrass would be remotely bothered by the rantings of a kids TV composer. But I wish he would be bothered. I find myself angry because he should know better (the same reason why I started that ranty thread about Christopher Nolan's joyless yet absurd Dark Knight series - you expect nothing from the Michael Bay's of the world, but expect far more from the Christopher Nolans). Greengrass is one of the good guys - this decision wasn't worthy of him.

Right, now I'll go back to scoring a sketch for a British kids TV puppet show.


----------



## AR (Apr 17, 2014)

As the darris said. Director wanned music like the temp. I think Henry Jackman jumped in for John Powell (probably cause he was busy with something else). But c'mon ripping of a tune from your own past movie that's pretty shitty. At least Greengrass should've let Jackman try out more ideas for that key scene. Or maybe I'm wrong and they were in a time hurry to close the picture. Who knows...


----------



## Ed (Apr 17, 2014)

I haven't seen Captain Philips, but there's various films where they've used some track from some score to another so its not the first time.


----------



## Ed (Apr 17, 2014)

Greg @ Wed Apr 16 said:


> Time sound-alike:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MPYQPzxc4&list=PLKjwRpQidz5vXsKozi_jPwR4XQ_Omo0n4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MPYQP ... 4XQ_Omo0n4)



Wow...

I presume this was intentional and everyone knew this was going to be a rip off. 

Hey you remember what happened on 300 and Tyler Bates got caught ripping off Goldenthal and they had to issue an an apology saying he used bits from his Titus score without their knowledge or consent? That was funny.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 17, 2014)

98% of the people who will see a film are not film soundtrack afficianados. And since the studios generally own the copyrights, it is legal.I scored a TV movie of the week for NBC in the early 2000's named "Fugitive Nights" and later that year I heard a couple of my cues in other MOWs.


Of the 2 % that are, maybe 1% will have actually heard the specific cue that was written for another picture and ...err.... borrowed for the newer film.

Directors make films for the 98%, not the 2 %. Of course, if I were the composer I would be upset that my cue was replaced with one from another film but I would cash the check, take my wife out for a nice dinner, and hope that the director calls me for his next film.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Apr 17, 2014)

You aren't the only one who feels this way......

http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/captain_phillips.html

Not seen the film or heard the score myself.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 17, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> 98% of the people who will see a film are not film soundtrack afficianados. And since the studios generally own the copyrights, it is legal.I scored a TV movie of the week for NBC in the early 2000's named "Fugitive Nights" and later that year I heard a couple of my cues in other MOWs.
> 
> 
> Of the 2 % that are, maybe 1% will have actually heard the specific cue that was written for another picture and ...err.... borrowed for the newer film.
> ...



Jay, I refer you to the part of my post where I said "he should know better". Of course it's all legal, but with a Paul Greengrass movie I think you're allowed to discuss artistic merit - we'd all just shrug if it was Michael Bay. Rehashing past glories by lifting something wholesale doesn't seem especially worthy of merit. The bigger question it raises for me is in aspiration - working with Paul Greengrass you'd imagine would be a best case scenario artistically for a composer. And the best case scenario really isn't all that great it seems to me.

And again, of course this is only noticeable to a tiny percentage of the public who know their soundtracks. But the logic that this means it doesn't matter is deeply flawed - if it applied to every directorial decision ("most people won't notice"), it wouldn't be a Paul Greengrass movie.



Stephen Rees @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> You aren't the only one who feels this way......
> 
> http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/captain_phillips.html
> 
> Not seen the film or heard the score myself.



Whoa, that makes my ranting seem mild! And it illuminates the original question a little, albeit by hearsay. I don't agree that the whole soundtrack was awful - most of it worked well (not at the subtle level of Powell I'd agree, but far from a catastrophe). It sounds like a desperately sorry story, however... again, another one of those things you read where you really question people's ambition to make it in Hollywood scoring at all costs. If that's the end game, you can keep it - I'm happier in my little niche working with good folks.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Apr 17, 2014)

I think it is fair to say I would have a nervous breakdown on Day 1 Hour 1 Minute 1 of scoring a blockbuster so I shall happily keep writing my little library music ditties. I take my hat off to anyone who scores a big film and survives with their sanity and their health intact.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Apr 17, 2014)

Greg @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> Time sound-alike:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MPYQPzxc4&list=PLKjwRpQidz5vXsKozi_jPwR4XQ_Omo0n4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MPYQP ... 4XQ_Omo0n4)



I just discovered this cue now. I find the evocative "sadness" of this performance quite ironical... 

AS


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 17, 2014)

@Guy: Puh-leeze. Paul Greengrass is a good director but he is not Truffault. Captain Phillips is a nicely executed _commercial_ film, nothing more, nothing less. And that's all they were trying to make.


----------



## The Darris (Apr 17, 2014)

Just because it had to exist on the internet somewhere, enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em9_50H5Bp8


----------



## The Darris (Apr 17, 2014)

To give credit though, I do feel Jackman's "Safe Now" (though strikingly similar to Time) did fit the emotional moment of the film and really helped draw out Hank's performance during that scene. I had the same moment as Guy where I was taken out of the film but it was for a moment until I saw Hanks shaking and in shock, then I was put right back in. Truly an amazing performance.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 17, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> @Guy: Puh-leeze. Paul Greengrass is a good director but he is not Truffault. Captain Phillips is a nicely executed _commercial_ film, nothing more, nothing less. And that's all they were trying to make.



Yup, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure he never really bothered with anything in that movie other than making a few bucks - weird how so many people read more into it. What saps folks can be!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 17, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 17 said:
> 
> 
> > @Guy: Puh-leeze. Paul Greengrass is a good director but he is not Truffault. Captain Phillips is a nicely executed _commercial_ film, nothing more, nothing less. And that's all they were trying to make.
> ...



What he cared about, I am equally sure, is that he turn out a well-crafted film that put asses in the seats so people could buy popcorn on opening weekend and therfore he could make more films.

What I am pretty sure of is that he was _not_ saying to himself is "I am making one of the great films of all time."


----------



## Ed (Apr 17, 2014)

Actually I'd really like to know what Hans thinks about that Time rip off since he helped produce this?


----------



## The Darris (Apr 17, 2014)

Ed @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> Actually I'd really like to know what Hans thinks about that Time rip off since he helped produce this?



I wouldn't hold my breath, I would bet a lot of the inside reasoning might have been hit with a non-disclosure agreement but what do I know? He hasn't chimed in yet.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 17, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> What I am pretty sure of is that he was _not_ saying to himself is "I am making one of the great films of all time."



Again, I'm sure you're right. The Mind of Greengrass: "Since it's not going to be Citizen Kane, I'll put in the hours, make sure there's no booms in shot and everyone says their lines and turn in a film that is perfectly serviceable and more than recoups the studios investment. Oh, and since only the greatest films of all time deserve their own score, for the music I'll just throw some stuff together in the edit that worked in some other film I did. It'll still be perfectly competent filmmaking".


----------



## The Darris (Apr 17, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 17 said:
> 
> 
> > What I am pretty sure of is that he was _not_ saying to himself is "I am making one of the great films of all time."
> ...


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 17, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 17 said:
> 
> 
> > What I am pretty sure of is that he was _not_ saying to himself is "I am making one of the great films of all time."
> ...



Guy, I know you are smarter than that. In between the realistic scenario I suggested and the callous one you describe is a very wide swath. It is not either "lofty" or "well executed crap." There are many, many films in the middle.

I am sure Greengrass always strives to make the best film he can every time out within the film's goals.

There are films with greater ambitions and films with lesser ambitions, whatever one thinks of how well they achieved them. Spielberg has been very clear that his goals for "Schindler's List" and his goals for "Jaws"or "Jurassic Park" were not the same. I am sure Greenglass did not kid himself that with "Captain Phillips", a very commercially oriented film, that he was trying for the same goal as e.g. "!2 Years A Slave", however well or poorly one thinks either turned out.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 17, 2014)

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, Jay - have you actually seen Captain Phillips? As many, many others have noted, this is much closer to the Greengrass of United 93, not the Greengrass of Bourne. It's not a mindless action flick - it's Greengrass in true story mode, a la the 9/11 film and Bloody Sunday. Yes, he makes them entertaining too, but Bourne it ain't.

And if you don't believe me, believe the man himself:



> It’s layered and complex and it goes to where we are today. I felt that way about United 93 and Bloody Sunday. You make the film as authentically as you know how, and if you make judgments with a spirit of open-mindedness, complexities emerge. These traumatic series of events seem to speak to the way we are.



http://www.deadline.com/2013/12/paul-gr ... ourne-mlk/

It was a film that strove for authenticity. You may think he failed in that or be cyncial enough to think he's talking PR nonsense and just see it as another Bourne flick (which he describes elsewhere as "popcorn movies" - fine, but a different beast of course), but there's no evidence you actually are saying what he really thinks.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 17, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, Jay - have you actually seen Captain Phillips? As many, many others have noted, this is much closer to the Greengrass of United 93, not the Greengrass of Bourne. It's not a mindless action flick - it's Greengrass in true story mode, a la the 9/11 film and Bloody Sunday. Yes, he makes them entertaining too, but Bourne it ain't.
> 
> And if you don't believe me, believe the man himself:
> 
> ...



I have seen it and enjoyed it. It is a fine film Certainly it strives for more than the Bourne films, but nonetheless it was clearly meant, at least to me, to be primarily a commercial film rather than an "important" film, and it is. 

Let's compare ywo other renowned Tom Hanks films, both masterful but once again with diffrent goals to my way of thinking.: "Philadelphia" and "forrest Gump."

Tons of people, including me, loved "Forest Gump", and it won the Best Picture Oscar but i don't think anyone would describe is as intending to be an "important" film.

"Philadelphia"clearly WAS striving to be an "important film and most movie buffs think it was. In any other year it too would probably have won Best Picture but it was the same year as another "important" film, "Schindler's List."

Anyway, all this is irrelevant. In today's film world if a filmmaker thinks a borrowed cue that he has procured the rights too makes his film better than one the composer for the film wrote, that is what he is going to choose and 98% of people who ever see the film will either know or care.

They are not making the film for composers, and other people who work in the industry. They are making them for the general public.

This is what happens here constantly, all trees, no forest. Someone posts a nicely done piece of music and then some clown writes e.g., "Nice, but at :33 it sounds a little synthy and takes me out of it."

forest.....trees....


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 17, 2014)

Well we should probably wrap up this diversion, Jay as it'll just be the boring old two people back and forth. Folks can of course decide for themselves if they're disappointed that one of Hollywood's most respected directors, making a film he considers to be of the same kind of film as his two highly revered classics, has rehashed a score from one of them.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 17, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> Well we should probably wrap up this diversion, Jay as it'll just be the boring old two people back and forth. Folks can of course decide for themselves if they're disappointed that one of Hollywood's most respected directors, making a film he considers to be of the same kind of film as his two highly revered classics, has rehashed a score from one of them.



Agreed. Jut don't make the mistake of thinking that guys like him place value on what guys on forums like this think about it. They do not.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Apr 17, 2014)

I remember being oddly surprised when watching Argo and suddenly Desplat's score disappeared in an action scene and a Harry Gregson-Williams cue from Spy Game started playing.

Was very odd.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 17, 2014)

TheUnfinished @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> I remember being oddly surprised when watching Argo and suddenly Desplat's score disappeared in an action scene and a Harry Gregson-Williams cue from Spy Game started playing.
> 
> Was very odd.



Jeepers, another quality film. I do find it incredibly depressing. I've never had my sights on scoring in Hollywood, but if I did these tales would be the ones to stop me.

I heard an anecdotal story of an Abbey Rd scoring session for a huge blockbuster. The gist was - producers who'd apparently never listened to the temp screaming at the hapless composer that it needed to "sound more like Transformers". The orchestra sat in the studio as he rewrote.

Is that the life of an A lister?


----------



## The Darris (Apr 17, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> Is that the life of an A lister?



Sadly, there are a lot of these anecdotal stories being whispered around the industry. Directors fall in love with the temp score and expect it to sound just like it sometimes, so much so that the 'revised' version of it is not enough so they license the original track from the temp.

This is a great little behind the scenes talk about the score for Alien, I tried to start it where the real story behind it begins, I feel this is pretty relevant to this discussion: http://youtu.be/U8bv0QDLI7M?t=8m17s


----------



## Stephen Rees (Apr 17, 2014)

Some of Jerry Goldsmiths music from 'Psycho 2' ended up in the release of 'Legend' which he also scored.

That's the good news.

The bad news is the entire score for 'Legend' was replaced by a Tangerine Dream score for the US release of the film (unless you prefer that music, in which case it is good news for you).

To this day you can get the film on DVD with two entirely different scores.


----------



## bluejay (Apr 17, 2014)

Guy, regarding lifting tracks from other scores, didn't the Oscar winning score from The Artist do just that stealing a track from Vertigo?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 17, 2014)

bluejay @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> Guy, regarding lifting tracks from other scores, didn't the Oscar winning score from The Artist do just that stealing a track from Vertigo?



You can't steal something you own.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Apr 17, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> Some of Jerry Goldsmiths music from 'Psycho 2' ended up in the release of 'Legend' which he also scored.
> 
> That's the good news.
> 
> ...


Sorry. Jerry Goldsmith wrote a lot of great music, but his score to Legend really really doesn't work at all. It just sits on top of the film as if it isn't part of it. A very odd watching experience.

Tangerine Dream's score is perhaps an acquired taste, but what it does do is work WITH the picture, where Goldsmith's score simply didn't.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Apr 17, 2014)

TheUnfinished @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> Stephen Rees @ Thu Apr 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Some of Jerry Goldsmiths music from 'Psycho 2' ended up in the release of 'Legend' which he also scored.
> ...



One thing for sure is that it is another example where a cue from one film ended up in another.

You'll also find some of James Horner's 'Aliens' at the end of 'Die Hard'.


----------



## The Darris (Apr 17, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> You'll also find some of James Horner's 'Aliens' at the end of 'Die Hard'.



He also write a lot of the same stuff over and over and over again. There is one motif that I have heard in almost every score he has written. It will take some time, but I will find it to share. Stay tuned.....


----------



## Stephen Rees (Apr 17, 2014)

The Darris @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> Stephen Rees @ Thu Apr 17 said:
> 
> 
> > You'll also find some of James Horner's 'Aliens' at the end of 'Die Hard'.
> ...



If it is the one I think it is you'll find it in Rachmaninow Symphony No.1 quite a lot


----------



## The Darris (Apr 17, 2014)

Yeah, I just did a search and there are so many. I was trying to find the one from Troy and Avatar that was the exactly same brass melody, note for note. I understand he may 'own' it because he wrote it but good lord, what happened to being creative. 

_::Chris remembers that hollywood/producers tend to control what you write and backs out of the room slowly::_


----------



## The Darris (Apr 17, 2014)

Oh yeah, here it is: http://youtu.be/aroXb60VvT4


----------



## Stephen Rees (Apr 17, 2014)

James Horner and the 'cross pollination' of his scores is a bit of a subject unto itself.


----------



## snowleopard (Apr 17, 2014)

I have to agree with the majority here. I thought the film was decent, but overpraised, and the ending empty. I didn't realize at the time it was Powell's music (Hans' music?) but could tell something was off. Very off. The entire score sounded too edited, too canned. That Filmtracks review is harsh, but the basis of it is correct. I have a feeling Jackman was pushed around, and aside. 

I think what this really shows me though that it really is a risk-averse business, with financial considerations often taking place over aesthetic ones. This has always been a Yin/Yang, but this is an example to me where creative intellect was pushed too far aside. Much too far. Be that from financial/time pressure to get the film done coupled with the safety of using "proven" music (the temp track), or simply a philistine decision by Greengrass. Either way, both are toxic to cinema as I see it, and almost unforgivable in big budget films by established filmmakers. 

I agree that Greengrass is a good filmmaker. United 93 and Green Zone were very good. But he's not Truffaut, as Jay said.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 17, 2014)

snowleopard @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> he's not Truffaut, as Jay said.



I saw Jules et Jim once. It bored me rigid. In fact, I seem to remember actively DISliking it, and loathing the characters.

I bet if we did a poll in VI-C, there wouldn't be a single director working today on whom even a majority would agree that their recent output made them a great. Not that I want to start a huge tangent here, but I'm very wary of "it's no Citizen Kane" comments. I think its very hard for folks to appreciate stuff in their own time. It's super-easy to point to Kane or whatever as an untouchable work of singular genius, 60 years after the event when many learned folks have dissected and acclaimed it. But of course many of the classics - It's A Wonderful Life et al - were dismissed in their day. 

Always interesting to speculate how films of today will age. I bet United 93 will stand, for one. I'm not at all sure some currently revered movies from revered directors will age nearly as well.

I picked on Greengrass because I like him so much. I like him in interview, he seems both warm and intelligent and it's clear he's phenomenally good at making naturalism gripping and entertaining (love some of the early scenes in Captain Philips of the crew talking - sounds totally authentic). And of course he can ramp it up when he needs to. So when I hear something has gone wrong with my own ears and read that review of some of the rumours... well it does, it depresses me. I want people like Greengrass to be on the side of the artists, I guess, not just beholden to conservatism.

One of my all time favourite movies is 12 Monkeys. There's one of the best ever making-of documentaries on the DVD, an independent movie called The Hamster Factor. Utterly compelling and no holds barred. After a troubled shoot and long edit, they test screened it, convinced they had a winner. The results were atrocious. I defy anyone who has been involved with anything creative to watch the scene when they've had the results in and not be moved. It's a room full of shattered, broken people, trying to cheer each other up - "Airplane tested badly, you know". The focus groups told them they had it all wrong. But you know the miracle? Somehow it got released with only minor changes. And I think it is a truly brilliant movie (pssst... better than Brazil). A masterpiece that could have been ruined by the focus groups and forces of conservatism.

But you know what? Gilliam has made some absolute turkeys. It's not as simple as giving maverick figures sacks of cash and waiting for them to turn out brilliance. William Goldman, as ever, had it exactly right.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Apr 18, 2014)

I'm reading Mark Kermode's book 'Hatchet Job' at the moment and there's a whole section on the problems with producers/directors listening to carefully to preview screening feedback. He, as usual, makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 18, 2014)

TheUnfinished @ Fri Apr 18 said:


> I'm reading Mark Kermode's book 'Hatchet Job' at the moment and there's a whole section on the problems with producers/directors listening to carefully to preview screening feedback. He, as usual, makes a lot of sense.



Yes, just finished it myself. Seemed to settle down by about chapter 4, and agreed - much sense is made. The Fatal Attraction story is a good one, and the number of layers that existed to prevent an ending that was coherant, and yet simultaneously increase box office.

But I urge anyone with even the slightest affection for 12 Monkeys to get the DVD and watch the documentary. Simply the best look at the entire filmmaking process I ever saw (follow up with the documentary makers' excellent Lost In La Mancha for an alternate and even bleaker trajectory). The marketing discussion I remember as being fascinating too - "The Future Of The World Is In The Hands Of A Man Who Has None". "Wait, the man has _no hands_?"


----------



## Stephen Rees (Apr 18, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Fri Apr 18 said:


> The marketing discussion I remember as being fascinating too - "The Future Of The World Is In The Hands Of A Man Who Has None". "Wait, the man has _no hands_?"



Ha Ha! I love Terry Gilliam. Agreed on '12 Monkeys'. 'The Fisher King' is also wonderful.

For a satirical look at the movie biz I always enjoy watching the late great Robert Altman's 'The Player'.


----------



## AC986 (Apr 18, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> @Guy: Puh-leeze. Paul Greengrass is a good director but he is not Truffault. Captain Phillips is a nicely executed _commercial_ film, nothing more, nothing less. And that's all they were trying to make.



+1

You also have to remember that something like e.g. Jules et Jim, which came out in 62 and I actually saw at the cinema a little later, is of it's time. Most people that comment on films were not alive when that came out. Films are all about their own time. Occasionally you get films way ahead like Citizen Kane, which is not only revered for the acting and the script and Orson Welles. Greg Toland did a hell of a job on the cinematography too. Lots of factors make that film interesting because they had not tried that way of film making before Kane. 
The score also falls away from the traditional Viennese way of orchestrating a film. Loads of factors.

Legend, on the other hand, was caned by the critics at the time and rightly so. The cinematography is great. But the film is crap. Doesn't really know what it is or who it's meant to appeal to.

Had the cinematography in Kane been the only thing going for it, Kane would now be forgotten. And there would have been no The Magnificent Ambersons, which is also great, if not better than Kane, apart from the ending getting fucked up by the producers. Got to have a happy ending!

Vertigo took over recently from Kane as the critics all time film. I also saw that at the cinema and the way you think of it then versus now is always going to be different because of different times. Anyone not alive in 1958 can't imagine what it was like then.
Very different world. Were you hiding under your school desk at times then Jay, or did that come later?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 18, 2014)

Then I was 14 when Jules Et Jim came out. I saw it a few years later.

Anyway, I just arbitrarily picked Truffault. Pencil in instead any director who has made a number of movies where his artistic intention was equal to his commercial aspirations, at least with certain films.

Directors are no different than composers. Their films need to make money or they will not get to make more films. So they will do whatever they have to with the music if they think it works better with the picture and therefore furthers that goal and they will not be worrying about what the composer's feelings are or the negative opinions of a bunch of film music geeks like us.


----------



## AC986 (Apr 18, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Apr 18 said:


> Then I was 14 when Jules Et Jim came out. I saw it a few years later.
> 
> Anyway, I just arbitrarily picked Truffault. Pencil in instead any director who has made a number of movies where his artistic intention was equal to his commercial aspirations, at least with certain films.
> 
> Directors are no different than composers. Their films need to make money or they will not get to make more films. So they will do whatever they have to with the music if they think it works better with the picture and therefore furthers that goal and they will not be worrying about what the composer's feelings are or the negative opinions of a bunch of film music geeks like us.



And of course the French don't really care about the rest of the world so much when it comes to making films. They tend to stick to their own culture and what appeals to that culture. All power to them for that. Yes I was 15 when that came out and saw it later. Maybe two or three years on.

In those days the local cinema would show anything. I remember they showed Wuthering Heights with Lawrence Olivia that was made in 1939, in 1960 for a week because they didn't have anything else at the time. I kid you not. Happened all the time in those days.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 19, 2014)

I think everyone in this thread who wants to discuss art and commerce in the cinema should be forced to watch Woody Allen's "Interiors" three times in a row. (Everyone except me, of course- I had to walk out of the fcker.)


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 19, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> I think everyone in this thread who wants to discuss art and commerce in the cinema should be forced to watch Woody Allen's "Interiors" three times in a row. (Everyone except me, of course- I had to walk out of the fcker.)



Haaa!

This thread is threatening to merge with the No Melodies one. One can point to any number of huge commercial successes that have great artistic integrity, and plenty of banal small independent features that are simply poor and derivative. Mark Kermode (him again) argues passionately that Inception was a Hugely Important Film because it showed you could package up a blockbuster to a modern adult audience and treat them with intelligence, something that conventional Hollywood wisdom rejects. IMO its foolish and simplistic to pick now-revered names of past classics as representing pure unsullied quality, and disregard upon any modern movie that happens to be popular just because it IS popular.

It's nothing short of a miricle when films of quality are made within the Hollywood machine. We've been warned for years that such films will become extinct, but imo the past couple of years of Oscar Best Picture nominees have been a bumper crop. Happily the cracks seem to be getting bigger into which quality is able to slip through.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 19, 2014)

You know, I have varying thoughts about the movie business, like that the preponderance of animated films (as amazing as they are) indicate a sort of infantilization of the adult public, that it's hard even for my heroes like the Coen brothers or Scorscese to always make winners, that I simply cannot watch another movie about superheroes or elves, hobbits or any other magical figureso f fantasy, etc etc.

All that said, movies still have the power to engage, thrill and move me. I'm truly glad they keep makin' 'em. Some will be genius, others will be stinkers, it's all subjective, but when they hit my personal mark, it's magical.

Oh- as to the OP- man, I can't count the amount of times I've gotten an assignment to "make it sound like blah blah blah." It hardly surprises me that now they're just going out and licensing or ripping off blah blah blah, been going on forever, it's just gotten worse recently.


----------



## midi_controller (Apr 19, 2014)

adriancook @ Fri Apr 18 said:


> Legend, on the other hand, was caned by the critics at the time and rightly so. The cinematography is great. But the film is crap. Doesn't really know what it is or who it's meant to appeal to.



Sure it does. It was, as you said, a product of it's time and it appealed to my generation, and of the people around my age who I've discussed it with, most if not all seem to remember it fondly (Tim Curry was brilliant as darkness). I'm with TheUnfinished on the score though, I saw the cut with Goldsmith's score and it almost ruined the movie for me. They really are almost two completely different films. 

Shame about the score for Captain Philips though. I remember noticing the Time ripoff when I watched it, but didn't know they completely re-used a cue from United 93 (I had only seen that movie once when it was released, so I wasn't too familiar with the score). The only thing that I just can't understand is why some directors get so damned attached to the temp. I mean, they go and hire someone who's career is devoted to the study and practice of writing music for film, and instead of working with them and using their expertise, they just want the composer to copy another score. Why don't these guys just license everything or go right to a music library instead of wasting time on a composer who they don't respect anyway, and who will most likely turn out a mediocre score since they have no creative freedom?


----------



## AC986 (Apr 19, 2014)

midi_controller @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> adriancook @ Fri Apr 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Legend, on the other hand, was caned by the critics at the time and rightly so. The cinematography is great. But the film is crap. Doesn't really know what it is or who it's meant to appeal to.
> ...



Then I wish they'd advertised it as a children's film at the time and saved myself a lot of trouble. 

Tim Curry was too brilliant. Thats the trouble with crap films. The brilliance of one makes it all the more crap. It wasn't meant to be a film aimed at a certain age group and the fact that you or anyone else likes it is immaterial when you're talking about whether something is good or not. I like lots of things that are crap, even though I know they're crap.

If you remember it with fondness then thats great. If you think its good, thats great too but you're sadly mistaken.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Apr 19, 2014)

It's possible to be very fond of 'crap' things without shame I say.

As far as 'Legend' goes, I don't think the film really worked, although it had its moments. Perhaps which score one prefers might be influenced by which version was seen first? I know I have many classical recordings regarded as 'crap' by those supposedly in the know, but because they were the first recording I have of that work they in some cases remain my favourite.

I brought up the 'Aliens score at the end of Die Hard' thing because exactly the same thing happened to me when watching that film as happened to Guy with 'Captain Phillips'. It totally knocked me out of the film right at the 'Powell finally overcomes his not drawing his gun issue to save the day' moment. Nobody else cared though . You'd have thought Michael Kamen could have rustled up a bit of score to underline that moment, but for some reason it never happened.


----------



## midi_controller (Apr 19, 2014)

adriancook @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> Then I wish they'd advertised it as a children's film at the time and saved myself a lot of trouble.
> 
> Tim Curry was too brilliant. Thats the trouble with crap films. The brilliance of one makes it all the more crap. It wasn't meant to be a film aimed at a certain age group and the fact that you or anyone else likes it is immaterial when you're talking about whether something is good or not. I like lots of things that are crap, even though I know they're crap.
> 
> If you remember it with fondness then thats great. If you think its good, thats great too but you're sadly mistaken.



Yeah, it's not like art is subjective or anything. :roll: 

Sure, there are crap movies out there (ever seen anything by the Asylum?) but to say Legend is one of them is, to me, just flat out wrong. It's not the greatest film ever made either, but it was a fun little movie with some incredible visuals that did something a bit different and unique with the fantasy genre. Why anyone would point to it as an example of a bad movie is just totally beyond me.


----------



## AC986 (Apr 19, 2014)

midi_controller @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> .



Yeah, it's not like art is subjective or anything. :roll: 

Why anyone would point to it as an example of a bad movie is just totally beyond me.[/quote]

Because it's crap.

Art is not subjective. Sorry, but there it is. Subjectivity is an excuse for lack of experience and what that gives you. Going to the theatre and watching films you think you're going to like is a great passtime if you like that sort of thing.

How would you ever know if anything was any good if you simply applied what you like as criteria? A piece of bollocks woodwork or automobile is still bollocks just because you or I like it. Like I said, I like a lot if things that are awful and crap, like the film Tomb Raider for instance, but it's still crap.


----------



## snowleopard (Apr 19, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> ...Mark Kermode (him again) argues passionately that Inception was a Hugely Important Film because it showed you could package up a blockbuster to a modern adult audience and treat them with intelligence, something that conventional Hollywood wisdom rejects...


Haha! I didn't even like that movie very much. I admired they tried to do something "smart" but there was too much expositional dialog, and I didn't think it was as original as others (having seen Dreamscape, The Cell, and read some sci-fil books when young). It was okay I guess, but anything but Hugely Important to me. 

As to what Midi says about directors getting married to temp tracks, this has gone on for years, and I imagine with time constraints and high pressure from shareholders trickling downhill, in a risk-averse situation, it's easier also to just take the temp track. Critics and cynics trash people like Horner (or even Hans!) for creating similar sounding scores, but those of us who've seen the trench, know the ugly reality. As the saying goes, it's show business not show art. As often as not people get into this business proverbially thinking they're going to bed with the most beautiful woman in the world, only to wake up with their fat ugly sister. 

FWIW, I liked 400 Blows much more than Jules & Jim.


----------



## AC986 (Apr 19, 2014)

snowleopard @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> x
> FWIW, I liked 400 Blows much more than Jules & Jim.



And I think all Philistines should be slain!


----------



## midi_controller (Apr 19, 2014)

adriancook @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> Art is not subjective. Sorry, but there it is. Subjectivity is an excuse for lack of experience and what that gives you. Going to the theatre and watching films you think you're going to like is a great passtime if you like that sort of thing.
> 
> How would you ever know if anything was any good if you simply applied what you like as criteria? A piece of bollocks woodwork or automobile is still bollocks just because you or I like it. Like I said, I like a lot if things that are awful and crap, like the film Tomb Raider for instance, but it's still crap.



Yeah, it's not like movies are meant to be entertaining or anything. If everyone can't understand the subtle brilliance of a masterpiece like Korine's Trash Humpers, well they are just uneducated imbeciles!

So who gets to say whether a film is good or not? You? Critics? Based on what? How well crafted it is? How deep and meaningful it is? Will a film meeting anyone's criteria for the best film out there be universally loved by all that see it? Or is everyone who doesn't like said film just an idiot?

So, do you go to the theater to watch films you think you won't like? I really don't understand where you were going there. As for how I know if something is good, I know what is good to me. I know what would be good to recommend to others based on what they like. I don't rate films on a scale like you seem to, because every film is made for different reasons, different purposes, and different audiences. If you want to talk about how a film is more influential, groundbreaking, or whatever that is fine, but how good a film is, or how well an audience will connect with it, is entirely subjective. It's very obvious when critics can't even seem to agree on whether a film is good or not, and that is their job. 

You're very adamant that Legend is crap, but you've yet to explain why you think that. If you look on Rotten Tomatoes, it's at 48%, which while not a great rating, is nowhere near Tomb Raider at 19% or a film like Jack and Jill which was almost universally loathed at 3%. Even then, Jack and Jill is nowhere near the godawful horrors of something like Pirates of Treasure Island, which, on top of being a horrible film in every aspect, was also shamelessly trying to take advantage of the success of Pirates of the Caribbean.

So yes, Legend may be crap in your eyes, but in mine it's far from it. There are far, far worse ways to spend an hour and a half, and I'm afraid most people would probably agree with me on that.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 19, 2014)

I don't know why you guys keep posting. Just ask Adrian if you want an objectice opinion about art in the cinema. :wink:


----------



## AC986 (Apr 20, 2014)

midi_controller @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> Yeah, it's not like movies are meant to be entertaining or anything.



Well damn and blast me all to hell for interfering with your entertainment! (huff puff huff puff, where's my ffffucking inhaler!!!)




midi_controller @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> So who gets to say whether a film is good or not? You? Critics? Based on what? How well crafted it is? How deep and meaningful it is? Will a film meeting anyone's criteria for the best film out there be universally loved by all that see it? Or is everyone who doesn't like said film just an idiot?




I thought I explained all that already. In the end you just know.

The last two films I watched were……(let me think) were

Throne of Blood and The Hidden Fortress. I started watching Ben Hur yesterday.

The Hidden Fortress is interesting because it spawned Star Wars. I also like the way Kurosawa uses wide screen as opposed to the way Hollywood or someone like David Lean would use it. Throne of Blood of course is basically Macbeth. Both worth catching.


----------

