It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I'm a tad late to the party, but I'll dance anyway.
Trying to apply the same prerequisites and requirements to define a genius is possibly the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Different people work best in different conditions. That's why standardized testing doesn't work. Geniuses are so because they are the best in certain conditions. It'd be the same mentality to put an F1 racecar driver in a NASCAR championship and expect him to win. Same basic sport, different practices.
If you put your two 'genius' composer examples in identical conditions, you would get drastically different results, and you most definitely would pick one over the other, and not equally appreciate them. It's impossible.
Yes, it is impressive what John Barry did with TMWTGG. But he had a title track to rely on and essentially echo throughout the film. QoS did not, and thus Arnold had two weeks to start from scratch seeing as Forster rejected his proposed involvement with the title song.
And the very fact that you bring up how Morricone was allowed to mold the film and characters to his music should show you how extreme of a contrast that is to Arnold being given a rough cut of a film and two weeks to do something. If Arnold had the opportunity to do some track work before the film was made, had Arnold been able to work on the title song, and had Arnold had more than 2 weeks to complete the soundtrack of a 1.5 hour long feature film, I'm sure it would have blown the roof off.
But he didn't, and in return, we still get what you even agree is some of his better Bond work. You may not be convinced he's a genius, and I really don't think anyone else here is either, but he is not bad. He's done well with his time in the franchise. White Knight is a relatively popular modern piece of Bond music, and every title song he's worked on have been good enough hits (perhaps not among the fans, but in the general consensus).
If I had to try and argue the genius of Arnold I would bring up these points:
+Chris Cornell and You Know My Name. That was Chris and David in a studio with a guitar penning out a Bond song, and it's a perfect Bond song. Arguably the most popular among fans since Goldeneye, and maybe even The Spy Who Loved Me.
+Saving the Bond theme for the end of Casino Royale. Goosebumps every time. What an epic scene, and perfect timing.
+Silence. He knows when to let the sound of the action take over. He does it in many cases in all the films, notably QoS when the opening song goes quiet at the roar of the V12 Aston Martin.
+Situational Sound. You can tell he is following the scenes, especially in the action. The trumpet blares to the beat of the punches, the tempo follows the pace of the actors, the intensity rises with the chaos on the screen. You could argue anyone could do that, but Arnold DOES do it, and it's noticeable in the best way. It helps everything flow.
I'm not for a moment saying he's a genius. I wouldn't dare say he doesn't know what he's doing though. Gone are the days of the slower paced Bond movies, where the action was tempered and tense, and there was space to breath and for Barry's themes to swell. Now are the times of 4-5 action set pieces, break-neck pace, quick cutting and editing, more dialogue, and better sound design. Modern cinema just simply doesn't make room for a composer to go all out anymore.
And gone are the days of the slower paced Bond movies?? SF was really jampacked with action?? Flipping heck even the earlier mentioned Star trek movies have a better soundtrack and they make the recent 007 movies look like paint dry when it comes to action. It proves that a skilled composer still can make a difference.
DA had nothing to do with the mentioned CGI mess, I do not believe I blame him for it at any point. I mentioned that poor CGI could be given the booth.
DA's composing for QoB was just poorish, the movie being a mess I do not blame him for, just for his little part in it.
And Newman has never composed a single soundtrack that has ever stayed with me no matter how many times I saw the movies.
1. David Arnold did not compose Skyfall. I thought that was obvious. I was talking specifically about CR and QoS, hence the example I gave. Seeing as it was relavent to me defending Arnold.
2. The Star Trek movies stand out because a) Michael Giacchino is far better than David Arnold, no contest b) There is character development and honest relationships c) the pacing allows for some nice melodies. You can't compare CR and QoS with the two recent Trek films.
They are completely different in direction, pacing, and storytelling. Arnold was given two fast-paced, action heavy films, and Giacchino was given something that took its time and told its story. Blame the filmmakers more than Arnold, for as you even said with your Morricone example, a composer needs to be involved and needs to be given space in the film. I'd argue Arnold's latest two didn't do that (CR slightly, QoS hardly), and Skyfall gave Newman room but he dropped the ball. And when CR did give him space, we got some VERY lovely and lovey themes, and a cracking Bond song.
Rarely you read so much truth in so few lines.
Thumbs up. Both of them!!!
Newman created a very rich and modern score for Skyfall but it seems like most people here are stuck in the 70s and think John Williams is the greatest movie composer of all time.
I could use both your quotes, really, @JWESTBROOK. I appreciate your viewpoints on this and you lay it out in a clear way. I tend to agree with everything you said, but I cannot comment on the Trek films as I have not seen them.
I think John Barry and Jerry Goldsmith are the greatest Movie composers of all time thank you.
What's so special about themeless music? Why can't today's movie scores be thematic and grand? Does everything have to follow a certain trend. I'd rather listen to music that I can remember and hum too rather than boring sound that's the equivalent to paint drying.
You REALLY need to remedy that, friend. :)
No melody, no composer. It's just that simple.
Fair enough on the CR title song. Fact is that it is popular among fans.
Here is a video talking about the effect silence can have in a movie. What I care about right now is at around 4:00 minutes in the narrator talks about how modern movies are too loud for too long. Sound in a film should build up, and once you reach a peak you contrast it during an emotional scene with quiet. It highlights my earlier argument perfectly: there's too much going on in CR and QoS for any composer to work with. As I said, the sound design is too prevalent. There is always something crashing, or punching, or whooshing, or falling, or exploding, and no time for the music to kick in.
The action hinders the music from telling the story. It's not just Bond; most modern films explain everything on screen, either through visuals, sound design, or dialogue. The Bond reboot is guilty of that too. There's no space for the music to tell the story. All Arnold, or Newman, has to do is a quick tempo and some brass and all they're doing is accompanying the story. Not telling it.
When Skyfall does slow down, like with Patrice and Bond on the bridge during the train fight, Newman kicks in with a repetitive 'DUN DUN' and then quiet and then 'DUN DUN' and then quiet and then.. you get the idea. That stood out to me in the theater. That is my favorite part of the score. The scene is quiet, the action is at a distance, and Newman steps in and gives you a sense of peril. There's really no example from CR or QoS where the film steps back like that.
:))
And Ennio of course, and John W. did make some unforgettable music as well.
I hope that Newman grows into the scoring role, as Arnold did. I know I'm not alone in thinking that QoS was his best score yet.
I think that honor belongs to John Barry.
That's the minimum one should expect of a Bond soundtrack. Barry did the hard work, it's up to others to follow his lead. Themes and cues define Bond. Not disparate, experimental compositions that peak the interest of musos. A Bond soundtrack, whether pounding or melodic should slap you around the face and leave you humming it for ever more.
@RC7, I agree with your last comment.
Nope.
Oh and this isn't about speculation or revelant news its an argument over Arnold vs Newman so don't ask for that from me when the current discussion is not. Thanks.
We need news bad lol ...we are at each others throat :(
I wouldn't say anyone is at each other's throat over anything. I thought its been a rather tame and great discussion.
And I'd say its appropriate to discuss who will be scoring the production in the production timeline.
2 years ago this forum was Barry vs Arnold. Now it's Arnold vs Newman :P But I am happy to see Arnold has got so muchy more defenders now than he had before. QOS was his best work and I am sure if he returns he will continue to improve. However I am happy with either Arnold or Newman for Bond 24.
Oh well, at least Newman doesn't use disco beats... :))