› ›

Should Dr.No be rescored with a John Barry type score?

jka12002jka12002 Banned
edited February 2013 in Music Posts: 188
No offence to Monty Norman fans but the music in Doctor No is WAY too dramatic and cheesy, i understand it was the very first Bond film but compared to the later scores by John Barry its terrible. Like the scene with the tarantula, when Bond smashed it with his shoe the music sounded like he was stabbing someone to death.

«1

Comments

  • AliAli
    Posts: 319
    No, no, no. Never go back and change a movie, regardless of how much better you think it can be made. Are you listening George Lucas?
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    So @Ali, I take it you don't like the Blade Runner Director's Cut then? Also, Legend had two different scores, one by Jerry Goldsmith and the US version with Tangerine Dream.

    I've always wondered how much better Dr No would have been with a JB score.
  • AliAli
    edited February 2013 Posts: 319
    The Director's Cut was restored back to the original cut. The voice over,happy ending and dream deletion were carried out after test screens. The Director's Cut is the original cut, proving my point.

    And both versions of Legend were equally crap so it matters a lot less!

    By that measure, I take it you're happy with Lucas and Spielberg's continual fiddling with CGI and would be happy to have Hitchcock's films rescored by Hans Zimmer?
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    I'm afraid that's not strictly true, @Ali. The Director's Cut never existed in the first place, only the Original workprint version (1982, 113 minutes), the US theatrical version (1982, 116 minutes) and The International Cut (1982, 117 minutes). The fact that Scott was allowed to come back and tinker with the original had more to do with the success of the "workprint version" being shown at the NuArt Theater in Los Angeles and the Castro Theatre in San Francisco in 1991 and selling out all its performances. The studio owns the movie and not the director so it can be argued their version is the original one.

    Let's not forget that the theatrical version of Dr No is not the Director's Cut but a butchered version as well, but that had more to do with the censors than negative feedback at sneak previews.

    How about Kubrick's 2001, the version that was released is a totally different version to the original cut?
  • AliAli
    Posts: 319
    But the score was chosen by the director for Dr. No. To go back and completely change it is to completely change the tone of the movie. I can partly see your point re cuts, but these cuts rarely involve a movie's score, which is usually the last part to be completed anyway. I'd still argue that Ridley was going back to what was originally shown pre release with his cut. There are also extended cuts out there of Dances With Wolves and Apocalypse Now but, from my viewpoint, those are just tinkering (Wolves was mainly just landscape additions with little extra content beyond the fort scenes).

    Lucas's tinkering is, I admit, the most interfering and least popular, but my point stands, especially in relation to classic movies, not to go back and fiddle with them. For every fan that prefers the tinkered edition, there will be a dozen members of the public that disapprove.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    I don't think Dr. No's soundtrack should be changed. GE had a much worse score and I still don't think it should be changed either! This is how the films were made, there is no turning back. Director's cuts, extended editions, etc are alright but this would go beyond that. If people started to change things in old films to make them better (in my opinion for worse), the final result could be completely different from the original because why couldn't they change other things? For example in the book
    there was no tarantula (which isn't poisonous) but a poisonous centipede.
    I think it worked better the way it was written in the book (just like so many other things) but the film was made differently, so be it, no matter how ridiculous it now may seem :-??
  • hoppimikehoppimike Kent, UK
    Posts: 290
    Yeah, I agree it shouldn't be changed although also agree it's not great.

    I love the GE soundtrack but then I love pretty much everything about GoldenEye lol
  • Villiers53Villiers53
    Posts: 802
    No the film should never be restored.
    It should undergo a full restoration and be re-released onto the big screen.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    NO the movie is excellent as it is.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    No.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    No! It should be left in its ORIGINAL format.
  • bondsumbondsum
    edited February 2013 Posts: 3,333
    Ali wrote:
    But the score was chosen by the director for Dr. No. To go back and completely change it is to completely change the tone of the movie.
    In actual fact the composer was chosen by Cubby and Harry and not the director due to his West End success with the musical Irma La Douce. Peter Hunt said that Young was very disparaging about the Norman score, referring to it as "mining disaster music" and felt they needed to bring someone else in. If we were to stay true to the director's vision and sound of the end product then Norman should be replaced.

    Look, it's not going to happen but there's nothing wrong in @jka12002 fantasizing about a modern alteration. It's what half of these forums consist of in terms of "what ifs" and "how about" suggestions. I recall seeing Dr No back in 1971 and thinking it sounded dated and pretty awful even back then, so I wouldn't be opposed to a change of musical score if I was asked. I respect your view, @Ali, it's just that I'm not in agreement on this one is all.

    And @Sandy, no one is suggesting replacing a tarantula with a bug or the killing of Dr No by a guano-loading machine instead of a reactor's cooling vat. It's the musical score we're talking about which was poorly received by both the producers and director. Due to time constraints they didn't have time to change it, unlike Lalo Schifrin's The Exorcist, Howard Shore’s King Kong, Alex North's 2001: A Space Odyssey, David Rose's Forbidden Planet, Jerry Fielding's The Getaway and Bernard Herrmann's unused score for Alfred Hitchcock's Torn Curtain - all recorded and all replaced. Even John Barry had a couple of scores rejected and replaced on Promise Her Anything and Clash of the Titans!!
  • hoppimikehoppimike Kent, UK
    Posts: 290
    Villiers53 wrote:
    No the film should never be restored.
    It should undergo a full restoration and be re-released onto the big screen.

    You mean a complete remake with new actors, etc?

    I think that can sometimes be a good idea.

    I LOVE how modern they made Casino Royale feel - that was perfect!
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    hoppimike wrote:
    Villiers53 wrote:
    No the film should never be restored.
    It should undergo a full restoration and be re-released onto the big screen.

    You mean a complete remake with new actors, etc?

    I think that can sometimes be a good idea.

    I LOVE how modern they made Casino Royale feel - that was perfect!

    Casino Royale was NOT a remake! No remakes, please.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    I think we can all agree that John Barry surpasses Monty Norman in almost every way as a Bond composer. That said, Norman delivered a score that worked well with DN. I honestly think that when fans dream about a Barry score for DN, they hope the film will receive a higher level of technical sophistication. However, a more sophisticated score would feel out of place with the rest of the film. We would also have to 'fix' the car chase back projection, some of the sound effects, perhaps re-edit the film to get the gun barrel sequence 'in the right place', etcetera. My point is: why change one particular thing and nothing else? Why change it in the first place? Barry stepped in for the scores from FRWL onward. And he delivered eleven marvellous scores. We should all feel lucky and meanwhile, enjoy DN for what it is: a bloody good Bond film!
  • 00130013
    Posts: 1,817
    jka12002 wrote:
    No offence to Monty Norman fans but the music in Doctor No is WAY too dramatic and cheesy, i understand it was the very first Bond film but compared to the later scores by John Barry its terrible. Like the scene with the tarantula, when Bond smashed it with his shoe the music sounded like he was stabbing someone to death.

    Does a Monty Norman fan exist? I mean, we are all greatful by the James Bond theme, but that couldn't been the same without Barry's orchestration. And nothing says that Barry couldn't have developed another James Bond theme as the original. He was a way more prolific composer than Norman.

    Another thing: one of the negative aspects of DN's soundtrack is that many themes on the album are unused in the film, for example the great theme "Dr. No's Fantasy".
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    DarthDimi wrote:
    We would also have to 'fix' the car chase back projection, some of the sound effects, perhaps re-edit the film to get the gun barrel sequence 'in the right place',
    CGI a centipede in place of the tarantula, re-dub some parts, design new credits, record a Bassy-like song for it, CGI a PTS sequence with a CGI Connery...
    b-(

    Seriously, updating some old optical FX for a science fiction movie or series is a LOT different than screwing with classic drama/adventure/espionage flicks.

    The ONLY change of any substantive kind in ANY Bond movie I'd like to see is making Bond's diving mask black in TB (and I'm not saying change the style of the mask with CGI- just make it black so when it's switched it's not as in-your-face that the continuity sucks).
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I think we can all agree that John Barry surpasses Monty Norman in almost every way as a Bond composer. That said, Norman delivered a score that worked well with DN. I honestly think that when fans dream about a Barry score for DN, they hope the film will receive a higher level of technical sophistication. However, a more sophisticated score would feel out of place with the rest of the film. We would also have to 'fix' the car chase back projection, some of the sound effects, perhaps re-edit the film to get the gun barrel sequence 'in the right place', etcetera. My point is: why change one particular thing and nothing else? Why change it in the first place? Barry stepped in for the scores from FRWL onward. And he delivered eleven marvellous scores. We should all feel lucky and meanwhile, enjoy DN for what it is: a bloody good Bond film!

    BINGO!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I think we can all agree that John Barry surpasses Monty Norman in almost every way as a Bond composer. That said, Norman delivered a score that worked well with DN. I honestly think that when fans dream about a Barry score for DN, they hope the film will receive a higher level of technical sophistication. However, a more sophisticated score would feel out of place with the rest of the film. We would also have to 'fix' the car chase back projection, some of the sound effects, perhaps re-edit the film to get the gun barrel sequence 'in the right place', etcetera. My point is: why change one particular thing and nothing else? Why change it in the first place? Barry stepped in for the scores from FRWL onward. And he delivered eleven marvellous scores. We should all feel lucky and meanwhile, enjoy DN for what it is: a bloody good Bond film!

    Exactly. Beside, the score of DN, with all its flaws, is part of its B movie charm.
  • jka12002jka12002 Banned
    Posts: 188
    0013 wrote:
    jka12002 wrote:
    No offence to Monty Norman fans but the music in Doctor No is WAY too dramatic and cheesy, i understand it was the very first Bond film but compared to the later scores by John Barry its terrible. Like the scene with the tarantula, when Bond smashed it with his shoe the music sounded like he was stabbing someone to death.

    Does a Monty Norman fan exist? I mean, we are all greatful by the James Bond theme, but that couldn't been the same without Barry's orchestration. And nothing says that Barry couldn't have developed another James Bond theme as the original. He was a way more prolific composer than Norman.

    Another thing: one of the negative aspects of DN's soundtrack is that many themes on the album are unused in the film, for example the great theme "Dr. No's Fantasy".

    That was just to save my own ass if anyone was a fan of Monty's music on here lol. Yeah i took a listen to that track i agree it sucks they didnt use it.

    Its better than "Under the mango tree" by a longshot. :P
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    Ludovico wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I think we can all agree that John Barry surpasses Monty Norman in almost every way as a Bond composer. That said, Norman delivered a score that worked well with DN. I honestly think that when fans dream about a Barry score for DN, they hope the film will receive a higher level of technical sophistication. However, a more sophisticated score would feel out of place with the rest of the film. We would also have to 'fix' the car chase back projection, some of the sound effects, perhaps re-edit the film to get the gun barrel sequence 'in the right place', etcetera. My point is: why change one particular thing and nothing else? Why change it in the first place? Barry stepped in for the scores from FRWL onward. And he delivered eleven marvellous scores. We should all feel lucky and meanwhile, enjoy DN for what it is: a bloody good Bond film!

    Exactly. Beside, the score of DN, with all its flaws, is part of its B movie charm.

    I wouldn't call DN a B movie, considering what it did with its limited budged, in those days and with the cast and crew it had, moreover considering its lasting impact and financial as well as critical acclaim. It wasn't Ben-Hur, but neither was it Beyond The Time Barrier. ;-) So for me, DN is more than a B flick. ;-)

    But look, in the end we agree. The film has more charm than many are willing to admit. Flaws exist, as they do in nearly all the Bonds, but it's often in the little imperfections that a film's heart and soul rest. Imperfect film - regardless of what sort of imperfection we think of here - attracts people like Tarantino and Rodriguez, who sometimes deliberately produce it because it does have a certain charming appeal. Over-sterilized films, hyperclean and technically superperfumed, can work against that appeal, which is why certain remastered, enhanced or re-edited older films fail to elicit the same enthusiasm their original versions did. (Take notice, please: I wrote 'certain'!) So I'll happily stick to DN and its little cuts and bruises and try not to fix them. For many of these unintentional imperfections, lest we forget, a very good reason exists.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    Well maybe not B movie, and some subsequent Bond movies look much cheaper, but DN has a certain lower budget charm.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited February 2013 Posts: 17,827
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Beyond The Time Barrier
    I thought NO ONE besides ME saw that film!!! :O
    (The Time Travellers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Travelers_(1964_film) was better)
  • 00Ed00Ed
    Posts: 140
    I've heard Dr. No described as a 1960s movie with a 1930s score. No wonder Young was nonplussed. But I'll still add my vote against re-scoring the film. Leave it as it is, as a cautionary tale, if nothing else.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    00Ed wrote:
    I've heard Dr. No described as a 1960s movie with a 1930s score.
    I would agree, and add that there´s nothing wrong with that.

    Dr. No has no problem with its score that would be big enough to justify a re-scoring. I would however back up all the way any suggestion to re-score NSNA with a new score.

    The idea of a John-Barry-like score is unrealistic. If such a thing were to come by the last eight Bond films would have had one I guess ;-).

  • Villiers53Villiers53
    edited February 2013 Posts: 802
    Villiers53 wrote:
    No the film should never be restored.
    It should undergo a full restoration and be re-released onto the big screen.

    Sorry folks,
    I meant to say; "No the film should never be RESCORED. It should undergo a full RESTORATION .....".
    By restoration, I don't mean remake. Classic film restoration is a technical process. If it interests forum members they should google for a full explanation.
    As a music afficianado and as somebody who saw Dr.No for the first time in 1963, I can tell you that the soundtrack, along with the rest of the film, was seen as a huge innovation back then and set the scene for decades to come. OK, it was surpassed by Barry in FRWL but that was a process.
    Independent of all of this, as a Fleming purist, I'm from the school that thinks that the whole series (except TSWLM) should be made in chronological order, as period pieces,and should remain as faithful to the original novels as possible but that's a different subject and shouldn't detract from the brilliance of Terence Young's movie.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    No it shouldn't but the Monty Norman one is bloody awful!
  • TracyTracy
    Posts: 1,713
    I like the "simplicity" of it , simple but effective ;)
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,026
    For those of us who saw Dr. No when it was first released, everything works fine. It was thrilling, exciting, and original. The music was eerie and atmospheric. It's easy fifty years later to pick it apart. Let it be.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,057
    It wouldn't be a wise decision that it was officially rescored, but I would love to see a fan rescore. Mining disaster music, indeed. The film has a bit of a B movie feel to it, and the music eagerly enhances it instead of keeping it in check.
Sign In or Register to comment.