# There is a god.



## choc0thrax (Oct 14, 2005)

http://www.soundtrack.net/news/article/?id=670


----------



## christianobermaier (Oct 14, 2005)

Not sure what the big ape has to do with god, so please enlighten me.

Christian

http://www.artofthegroove.com/logic/mp3/Christian_Obermaier_demo.mp3 (show reel) http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/home.htm (home page) http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/Studio.htm (studio pics) http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/Gearlist.htm (gear list)


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 14, 2005)

I'm just happy Shore got replaced with Newton Howard.


----------



## Marsdy (Oct 15, 2005)

Me too.


----------



## PolarBear (Oct 15, 2005)

They could have chosen Horner, though


----------



## Marsdy (Oct 15, 2005)

If there was any justice in the world, they would have used Gabriel Yared.


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 15, 2005)

The ultimate would be Elfman.


----------



## PaulR (Oct 15, 2005)

I'm not happy that anyone got replaced by anyone. Pretty sure GY wouldn't want to deal with subject matter like this.

The film probably shouldn't be made in the first place - it will never be as good as the original. It will look shiny and full of wondrous cgi and crap like that - but it won't get the originals mood - because this is a different time. Most remakes wind up in the DVD bins - where they belong. It will be just another chinese takeaway - nice while it lasts and 3 burps and it's forgotten - just like LOTR.


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 15, 2005)

Sure it looks like total crap but hopefully it'll be one of those crap movie/good score things.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Oct 15, 2005)

PaulR said:


> I'm not happy that anyone got replaced by anyone. Pretty sure GY wouldn't want to deal with subject matter like this.
> 
> The film probably shouldn't be made in the first place - it will never be as good as the original. It will look shiny and full of wondrous cgi and crap like that - but it won't get the originals mood - because this is a different time. Most remakes wind up in the DVD bins - where they belong. It will be just another chinese takeaway - nice while it lasts and 3 burps and it's forgotten - just like LOTR.



Maybe I'm just getting older, and am no longer in the 'target demographic', but I'm finding the gap between the kind of film that gets made in Hollywood (I'm not sure if you can blame them all on 'Hollywood' actually, is the remake of 'King Kong' a 'Hollywood' film?), and the kind of films I want to watch is just getting bigger and bigger.

On the minus side, there are hardly any films (with the exception of 'Wallace and Gromit' he he) that I want to see at the cinema at the moment, and hardly any DVDs being released of recent films that I want to buy.

On the plus side (and it is a BIG plus!), you can buy 2 or 3 classic films for the price of one 'Batman Returns' or 'Fantastic 4' DVD. How about 'The Third Man' for ?3.99. 'Psycho' for ?5.99 or 'Spartacus' for ?4.99? Also lots of other interesting genres to investigate like anime away from the 'mainstream' films. Actually there is a load of great stuff out there being produced, you just have to delve a little to find it.

Damn, I'm already a crotchety old man and I'm only 37!

To get back 'on thread' so to speak. I'm sorry Howard Shore got replaced, but I don't think there is any composer who could write a score brilliant enough to make me want to see a remake of 'King Kong'. The whole idea seems flawed from the start.


----------



## Cobalt Katze (Oct 15, 2005)

I personally am rather disappointed that Shore left the project. While I understand his reasonings, I was very much looking forward to the score. His scores just give me such a great breath of fresh air from the over-saturated "hollywood blockbuster" sound that tends to envelop most film soundtracks these days...


----------



## Ed (Oct 15, 2005)

PaulR said:


> just like LOTR.



I was with you up until this :D


----------



## PaulR (Oct 16, 2005)

Stephen Rees said:


> [Damn, I'm already a crotchety old man and I'm only 37!



Nope - not at all. 

Actually, I got The Third Man for 2.99 the other day and just bought Night of the Hunter for 1.00 on Ebay.

What makes a good film? CGI? I don't think so. When I was a kid I was lucky - because I could sit in the cinema and see anything I wanted. I would watch films whereby any effects in those days were done 'in front of the camera' like say Derby O Gil - I was watching Psycho in the cinema when I was 10 - that's probably why I'm mad today - go figure.

But anyway, good films generally mean you get character involvement. In other words, you CARE about the characters - you identify. Too many films lately use the actors as pawns that get moved from one place to another for the sake of continuity and cgi, etc. 
One massive gripe and rant coming - take a pile of sh!t like The Bourne Supremacy - here is a lesson on how to use fkd up camera techniques just to try and give a false sense of pace to an otherwise anthill of mediocrity - this film is meant to be 21st century action??????? Sheesh! And Matt Damon is a good actor.

Bottom line is involvement and entertainment. 

Choco's point about film versus score is an interesting and almost damning indictment of what happens more and more in film. The separation of film and filmscore. To get a crappy film - yet a good score, is an enigma to me actually. Generally, the film should work as a whole - a good film score is like a good football referee - you shouldn't really notice that it's doing a great job. Later, you can extract scores - but scores alone, are not initially what its all about. You could say the same about another extremely important technical aspect of film and that would be film editing. 
For example, in Psycho, not only has the score become very much part of film music folklore - but the film editing is probably one of the biggest unsung heroes of that particular piece. And naturally, bad film editing is something that is sublimanally noticed, even by an uneducated audience - uneducated in the sense they are not looking for it. Neither, on the other hand, do they realize why something works brilliantly. See how difficult it is to make something that really stands out? Hard game indeed.

Incidentally, I picked up His Girl Friday for 1.99 at Virgin the other day - one of the fastest dialogue movies ever made - 1.99!!!! Couldn't believe it. 

:D


----------



## Ed (Oct 16, 2005)

PaulR said:


> One massive gripe and rant coming - take a pile of sh!t like The Bourne Supremacy - here is a lesson on how to use fkd up camera techniques just to try and give a false sense of pace to an otherwise anthill of mediocrity - this film is meant to be 21st century action??????? Sheesh! And Matt Damon is a good actor.


Strange, I though that film was excellent


----------



## Niah (Oct 16, 2005)

Ed said:


> PaulR said:
> 
> 
> > One massive gripe and rant coming - take a pile of sh!t like The Bourne Supremacy - here is a lesson on how to use fkd up camera techniques just to try and give a false sense of pace to an otherwise anthill of mediocrity - this film is meant to be 21st century action??????? Sheesh! And Matt Damon is a good actor.
> ...



I thought that it was just another typical hollywood action film, 'till I saw it,
and I got tell ya I was pretty blown away. 
I haven't seen such a good action flick in ages, and I love the production, no cgi, real car chases, in your face stunts and documentary style filming - This adds tension and gets you right in the action IMO. 

"this film is meant to be 21st century action??????? Sheesh!"

I don't think so, this style of movie-making has been a starndard in european action films for quite some time, so it's really nothing of the 21st century.


----------



## tob (Oct 16, 2005)

That is great news! I'm a big fan of JNH so I'm looking forward to this score even more now. 

/Tobias


----------



## Herman Witkam (Oct 16, 2005)

Niah said:


> I don't think so, this style of movie-making has been a starndard in european action films for quite some time, so it's really nothing of the 21st century.



Exactly. Take "Lola Rennt" for instance (which featured German actress Franka Potente who was in The Bourne Identity/Supremacy too btw).


----------



## Marsdy (Oct 16, 2005)

Herman Witkam said:


> Niah said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think so, this style of movie-making has been a starndard in european action films for quite some time, so it's really nothing of the 21st century.
> ...



Now that was a great film! Very original. It was called Run Lola Run in the UK.


----------



## PaulR (Oct 16, 2005)

Niah said:


> Ed said:
> 
> 
> > Strange, I though that film was excellent



Yes - that is strange. But there again, you're still quite young right? :wink:


----------



## Aaron Sapp (Oct 16, 2005)

I'd have to agree with the camera technique (or lack thereof in this case) in Supremecy's fight scenes. Way too jarring, and incredibly annoying in the theater.  Overall I liked the movie though - lotta fun. Killing off his girlfriend in the beginning though... man. That was about as smart as wasting Trinity in Matrix: Revolutions.


----------



## Ed (Oct 16, 2005)

PaulR said:


> Niah said:
> 
> 
> > Ed said:
> ...


Actually, yes I am :lol: . Course my mother also really liked it.


----------



## Alex W (Oct 16, 2005)

Aaron Sapp said:


> I'd have to agree with the camera technique (or lack thereof in this case) in Supremecy's fight scenes. Way too jarring, and incredibly annoying in the theater.  Overall I liked the movie though - lotta fun. Killing off his girlfriend in the beginning though... man. That was about as smart as wasting Trinity in Matrix: Revolutions.



ie, very smart. Trinity was an annoying ho, just like the 2nd and 3rd matrix movies.

Bourne Supremacy was cool and I love the soundtrack, but yes I definitely agree - DITCH THE SHAKY CAM. It's stupid, it cheapens the whole scene, and most importantly, you cant see what the hell's going on.

I love the ol' days of Sean Connery and Roger Moore James Bonds, where they would take the most obvious slow punches, but the fights where awesome .


More on topic again, I think it's always kinda sad to hear of a composer and all his work being dropped at the last minute. It reminds us all that no matter what level you're at, you can be dropped.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 16, 2005)

Alex W said:


> ie, very smart. Trinity was an annoying ho, just like the 2nd and 3rd matrix movies.



:x Better watch what you say about me girl man!

.....looks over shoulder cautiously to see if wife is watching :?


----------



## Ed (Oct 16, 2005)

i dont know what you guys are on. I never noticed the shakey camera. It all looked good to me.


----------



## Niah (Oct 16, 2005)

Alex W said:


> More on topic again, I think it's always kinda sad to hear of a composer and all his work being dropped at the last minute. It reminds us all that no matter what level you're at, you can be dropped.



I feel the same way.



Ed said:


> i dont know what you guys are on. I never noticed the shakey camera. It all looked good to me.



Me too.


----------



## fictionmusic (Oct 16, 2005)

Stephen
I must be a crotchety old man too because I agree with 100%, Hollywood has so little I find appealing. I saw the trailor for Narnia and I thought to myself "typical Hollywood bullshit". Lately I have been watching indie films and national cinema and have itenjoyed it far more.

Ed said "I dont know what you guys are on. I never noticed the shakey camera. It all looked good to me." 


Are you sure you aren't confusing The Bourne Identity with The Bourne Supremacy ? The first was excellent with great car chases and fight scenes whereas the second (Supremacy) was treated like some live-action documentary with shakey-cam veracity. Compared to the first it sucked and blew.


----------



## Alex W (Oct 16, 2005)

Niah said:


> Alex W said:
> 
> 
> > More on topic again, I think it's always kinda sad to hear of a composer and all his work being dropped at the last minute. It reminds us all that no matter what level you're at, you can be dropped.
> ...



That part where he goes to that house and has a fight with that nameless guy who's also a highly trained soldier (just like Bourne). If you ever watch it again, that's the part I'm referring to. There are no doubt others, but that's the one I remember being annoyed about. I still really liked the movie though.


----------



## Ed (Oct 16, 2005)

fictionmusic said:


> Are you sure you aren't confusing The Bourne Identity with The Bourne Supremacy ? The first was excellent with great car chases and fight scenes whereas the second (Supremacy) was treated like some live-action documentary with shakey-cam veracity. Compared to the first it sucked and blew.



Do they look different? never really noticed! I thought the second one was slightly better in some ways, but its debatable. Still, it a worthy sequal to me.

Ed


----------



## Ed (Oct 16, 2005)

Alex W said:


> That part where he goes to that house and has a fight with that nameless guy who's also a highly trained soldier (just like Bourne). If you ever watch it again, that's the part I'm referring to.



In that case I have to say I loved that scene and the way they shot it :D


----------



## Joseph Burrell (Oct 16, 2005)

Its a damn shame that Hollywood doesn't pander to the needs of the .1% of the population that needs intellectually stimulating film, but be that as it may, its a business and it is run as such. Much like the music industry. Do you think, for one minute, that most Hollywood producers give one crap about plot? Yeah. Sure. Not when you have the other 99.9% of the population that watch a movie to be entertained on a visceral level. They don't need subplots and deep character development to be entertained. They need things that go 'boom' and CGI special effects and lead characters that look good in front of a camera. And I'm guilty as hell too. When I need some mental stimulation I watch foreign film (particularly Japanese anime) and when I need cheap thrills, I go to Blockbuster.

I don't see Shore's career taking a nose dive by him not being able to score this film, so he doesn't really lose out. This thing will likely go to video in about 2 months, anyway. And honestly, I don't think the music would much affect this picture at all. When I watched the trailer months back I had this gut feeling that it was doomed from conception anyway.


----------



## fictionmusic (Oct 16, 2005)

Ed said:


> Do they look different? never really noticed! I thought the second one was slightly better in some ways, but its debatable. Still, it a worthy sequal to me.
> 
> Ed



Well you're right probably, it didn't really suck but I was disappointed in it regardless. I actually watched the behind the scenes content for a change and they made a big-deal about the director using his documentary back-ground to make the movie more realistic, and how they relied more on steady-cam shooting than dollies and trucks etc. hence the shaky camera moves. 




As far as the original thread goes: a wink is as good as a nod.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Oct 17, 2005)

Joseph Burrell said:


> Its a damn shame that Hollywood doesn't pander to the needs of the .1% of the population that needs intellectually stimulating film, but be that as it may, its a business and it is run as such. Much like the music industry. Do you think, for one minute, that most Hollywood producers give one crap about plot? Yeah. Sure. Not when you have the other 99.9% of the population that watch a movie to be entertained on a visceral level. They don't need subplots and deep character development to be entertained. They need things that go 'boom' and CGI special effects and lead characters that look good in front of a camera. And I'm guilty as hell too. When I need some mental stimulation I watch foreign film (particularly Japanese anime) and when I need cheap thrills, I go to Blockbuster.



I agree with all of this. Hollywood won't change and I don't expect it to. As long as people go and see those films they will continue to be made. It is me that's changed over the last few years I think. I had a first time experience with a film just the other day. 'Ocean's Twelve'. It is the first time ever in my whole life that I literally couldn't watch a film. After 10 minutes I wanted to switch it off, but I couldn't believe it was that unbearable and it must get better. I managed half an hour before I gave up. Just couldn't believe it.

I'm not actually that bothered about it. Like you say, there are other genres out there well worth investigating like anime, and there are still plenty of old classics I either haven't seen, or don't know nearly well enough.

One film I wouldn't include on the list of 'a bit rubbish' is 'The Bourne Supremacy' though. I agree the camerawork made my head hurt a bit here and there, but overall I thought the film was brilliantly done, and the score by John Powell was one of the most appropriate thriller / action scores I've heard in ages. Best not to play the CD while you are driving though or speeding tickets start arriving in the post.

Back to my rocking chair and hot chocolate


----------



## PaulR (Oct 17, 2005)

The Bourne Supremacy.

Forget that I even mentioned it alright lads?

:cry: :cry: :cry:


----------



## handz (Oct 17, 2005)

Heh, this look like ending of beautifull friendship...


----------



## Ed (Oct 17, 2005)

PaulR said:


> The Bourne Supremacy.
> 
> Forget that I even mentioned it alright lads?
> 
> :cry: :cry: :cry:



Dont worry, you'll pay... YOU'LL PAY! IN BLOOD! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## PaulR (Oct 17, 2005)

Ed said:


> PaulR said:
> 
> 
> > Dont worry, you'll pay... YOU'LL PAY! IN BLOOD! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:



Ronin - now that's a good action film with one of the best car chases ever. Same genre as the Bourne Supremacy - but classy. Character involvement and even a story line. And you didn't have to stand on your head to watch it.

The first Bourne was good - the second is a big let down.

You're all going to have to trust me on this.

:lol:


----------



## José Herring (Oct 17, 2005)

PaulR said:


> Ronin - now that's a good action film with one of the best car chases ever. Same genre as the Bourne Supremacy - but classy. Character involvement and even a story line. And you didn't have to stand on your head to watch it.
> 
> The first Bourne was good - the second is a big let down.
> 
> ...



I loved Ronin too but they never quite made a good connection between the title and the movie. They tried but it never quite worked out. But entertaining none the less and I give them "props" for making a movie that at least had some thought behind it.

Jose


----------



## José Herring (Oct 27, 2005)

http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/#film5

Check it out gentleman( and JoAnne...we really need to interest more women in this forum). Anyway, looks like Jackson is picking up the overage cost of King Kong. Looks like it's turning out to be quite a good film imo. 

Could be the next Titanic. What'daya think?

Jose


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 27, 2005)

The movie looks like crap(imo  ) The only things he's done that doesn't suck is LOTR which how could you really screw that up anyways? Bad CG dinosaurs vs a big monkey...yay. My fingers are crossed that it flops.


----------



## Dr.Quest (Oct 27, 2005)

choc0thrax said:


> The movie looks like crap(imo  ) The only things he's done that doesn't suck is LOTR which how could you really screw that up anyways? Bad CG dinosaurs vs a big monkey...yay. My fingers are crossed that it flops.



Why? What the hell has he done to you anyway?
Sheesh.

J


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 27, 2005)

He hasn't done anything to me. I was mad though when Shore won the oscar for ROTK. Some movies I want to do well and some I hope crash down in flames, what's wrong with that? My prayers were answered this past weekend when Doom did bad at the box office. That's what Hollywood gets for making games look bad.


----------



## Niah (Oct 27, 2005)

He has done stuff way better than LOTR IMO, braindead and bad taste are instant classics. And who can forget that fake documentary that fooled everyone in hollywood? priceless.
As for this Kong, lets just wait and see...peter jackson usually surprises even the most skeptics.


----------



## Ed (Oct 27, 2005)

Niah said:


> And who can forget that fake documentary that fooled everyone in hollywood? priceless..



Forget?! I have never heard of this!!!

Unless you are talking about Bowling for Columbine or something :wink: 

Ed


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 27, 2005)

You're thinking of another fat guy.


----------



## Ed (Oct 27, 2005)

choc0thrax said:


> You're thinking of another fat guy.


aha! i think i know you you are talking aabout, but whats it about then I know not of this thing you people speak of here.


----------

