SPECTRE: Thomas Newman is Back! (appreciation topic)

18911131427

Comments

  • edited October 2014 Posts: 4,619
    Getafix wrote: »
    Seriously, this impresses you @PanchitoPistoles?

    I could ask the same thing from Arnold fans who are so impressed by his mediocre music. By the way, apparantly I was not the only one impressed by the score of Road to Perdition as it was nominated for an Academy Award (which means professional movie composers thought it was one of the 5 best scores of 2002).
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote: »
    Seriously, this impresses you @PanchitoPistoles?

    I could ask the same thing from Arnold fans who are so impressed by his mediocre music. By the way, apparantly I was not the only one impressed by the score of Road to Perdition as it was nominated for an Academy Award (which means professional movie composers thought it was one of the 5 best scores of 2002).

    I know, the 'Oscars' argument has been trotted out already. I noted that not a single Barry Bond score was ever nominated. Read into that what you will. The Academy even managed to nominate John Williams twice in 1987 (Empire of the Sun and Witches of Eastwick), the year Barry's TLD score came out.

    And that's not a dig at John Williams.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    I know, the 'Oscars' argument has been trotted out already.

    It's always trotted out, on every thread, relentlessly. It holds absolutely no weight with me given that people like Kubrick and Hitchcock were forever overlooked. It's just a boys club and I'm utterly indifferent about Oscar winners/noms being involved with Bond films. I don't see any Oscars on Campbell's shelves, but I see one of the greatest Bond films of all time on his CV.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Barry seems like a prickly character. Bet that didn't help his Oscar chances.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Getafix wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Seriously, this impresses you @PanchitoPistoles?

    I could ask the same thing from Arnold fans who are so impressed by his mediocre music. By the way, apparantly I was not the only one impressed by the score of Road to Perdition as it was nominated for an Academy Award (which means professional movie composers thought it was one of the 5 best scores of 2002).

    I know, the 'Oscars' argument has been trotted out already. I noted that not a single Barry Bond score was ever nominated. Read into that what you will.

    A bloody shame indeed. But then you only take into account the Bond films. Apart from that, both Thomas Newman and John Barry have incredible CV's, with several Oscar nominations (8 Oscar nominations for Barry, 4 of them were wins; 12 Oscar nominations). Both composers were/are well-known in Hollywood and the rest of The States. And my love for movie scores doesn't stop with Bond. Read into that what you will, but I do think Barry's scores for "The Lion In Winter" and "Born Free" were as superb as "OHMSS" and "YOLT", perhaps even slightly better.

    So I do understand that the Bond fans are slightly disappointed in Barry not getting nominated for one single Oscar. But against that fact you can put that, although Newman did get the first "Best Score" nomination for Bond since "TSWLM", he never won it. Which I think is a disgrace in itself :-).

    On top of that, both Barry and Newman expanded their image/name recognition in The States, whereas David Arnold....well, it seems he's a bit tired of scoring movies in the US.

    Although I must say, and I'm really surprised by MI6-HQ not mentioning it, Arnold won a Primetime Emmy for "Best Original Score" for the TV-series "Sherlock" and its episode "His Last Vow".
  • Posts: 908
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    which of course begs the question why they gave him the job in the first place.

    He got the job because he has scored all movies directed by Mendes (except one) and because he is one of the greatest movie composers working today.

    Which says a lot about recent times creativity potential. Sometimes I just envy those living in the 60/70s. It must have been great to be surrounded by so much talent alive and not just wannabees!

    Well, if you are stuck in the 60s of course you won't get the scores composed by Newman. I mean how can you say that this for example was scored by a wannabe?

    After listening to it quite easy,thank you.
    Please tell me you are kidding me. I mean does it get any more yawn than this? Certainly, but not much!
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,425
    If I didn't know better, I'd assume @PanchitoPistoles was just taking the p***. I mean, I haven't been very impressed by Newman, but surely he's done better work than this generic 'Oirish' drivel. His American Beauty score did at least seem to add something significant to the film, rather than just sounding like the aural equivalent of magnolia coloured wallpaper.

  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I know, the 'Oscars' argument has been trotted out already.

    It's always trotted out, on every thread, relentlessly. It holds absolutely no weight with me given that people like Kubrick and Hitchcock were forever overlooked. It's just a boys club and I'm utterly indifferent about Oscar winners/noms being involved with Bond films. I don't see any Oscars on Campbell's shelves, but I see one of the greatest Bond films of all time on his CV.

    Exactly. The fact that Kubrick never got an Oscar, says everything about the credibility of that award. All this talk about Oscar-worthy composers, actors, directors, etc. means absolutely nothing to me.

  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,425
    Just been listening to a few Newman scores and trying to work out what the fuss is all about. Can't say anything is grabbing me, but I am picking up this ethereal, ambient vibe. Some of it is quite beautiful, if not exactly memorable. Generally though it's pretty insipid stuff. This kind of thing certainly has its place, just not in Bond IMO. And I don't see much evidence that he has the repertoir to pull something radically different out of the bag for B24 though. If he does the score it's essentially going to be more of the same. Which if you like the SF score, is of course good news.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I know, the 'Oscars' argument has been trotted out already.

    It's always trotted out, on every thread, relentlessly. It holds absolutely no weight with me given that people like Kubrick and Hitchcock were forever overlooked. It's just a boys club and I'm utterly indifferent about Oscar winners/noms being involved with Bond films. I don't see any Oscars on Campbell's shelves, but I see one of the greatest Bond films of all time on his CV.

    Exactly. The fact that Kubrick never got an Oscar, says everything about the credibility of that award. All this talk about Oscar-worthy composers, actors, directors, etc. means absolutely nothing to me.

    Such nonsense. I call it "bad luck" really. The Oscars are, simply put, ranking games. Just turn it the other way around, in a more positive, less cynical way: Ending in the TOP 5 list is simply great (being nominated), and actually winning it is a wunderful bonus. That's how I look at the Oscars. And having said that, one can say that Kubrick had some nice Oscar nominations. A TOP 5 candidate of "Best Director" during certain given years for sure.

    On top of that.....it's about promoting your movie to screening audiences too. Had Sony promoted CR in a similar fashion like SF, then CR would have received 5 Oscar nominations as well. Blaim the movie company for that, not the Academy. Those members of the Academy were facilitated with and provided by way better looking screening kits (DVD screener, cd's of the score & song, an entire guide. Those screening packages for journalists and Academy members nowadays are lucrative items on Ebay) for SF. CR however? Terrific movies deserve prizes and awards. Period! But it also takes some cooperation from the movie company. Sony should have done better for CR with this aspect of "promotion for the Academy".

    One more thing. Since when have we become so cynical?? By jolly, give the Academy a warm hug for deserved recognition for a Bond film.....and simply a good film regardless of the franchise stamp.
  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I know, the 'Oscars' argument has been trotted out already.

    It's always trotted out, on every thread, relentlessly. It holds absolutely no weight with me given that people like Kubrick and Hitchcock were forever overlooked. It's just a boys club and I'm utterly indifferent about Oscar winners/noms being involved with Bond films. I don't see any Oscars on Campbell's shelves, but I see one of the greatest Bond films of all time on his CV.

    Exactly. The fact that Kubrick never got an Oscar, says everything about the credibility of that award. All this talk about Oscar-worthy composers, actors, directors, etc. means absolutely nothing to me.

    Such nonsense. I call it "bad luck" really. The Oscars are, simply put, ranking games. Just turn it the other way around, in a more positive, less cynical way: Ending in the TOP 5 list is simply great (being nominated), and actually winning it is a wunderful bonus. That's how I look at the Oscars. And having said that, one can say that Kubrick had some nice Oscar nominations. A TOP 5 candidate of "Best Director" during certain given years for sure.

    On top of that.....it's about promoting your movie to screening audiences too. Had Sony promoted CR in a similar fashion like SF, then CR would have received 5 Oscar nominations as well. Blairm the movie company for that, not the Academy. Those members of the Academy were facilitated with and provided by way better looking screening kits (DVD screener, cd's of the score & song, an entire guide. Those screening packages for journalists and Academy members nowadays are lucrative items on Ebay) for SF. CR however? Terrific movies deserve prizes and awards. Period! But it also takes some cooperation from the movie company. Sony should have done better for CR with this aspect of "promotion for the Academy".

    One more thing. Since when have we become so cynical?? By jolly, give the Academy a warm hug for deserved recognition for a Bond film.....and simply a good film regardless of the franchise stamp.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 4,619
    RC7 wrote: »
    It's always trotted out, on every thread, relentlessly. It holds absolutely no weight with me given that people like Kubrick and Hitchcock were forever overlooked

    You (and most people here) clearly have no idea about the Academy Award voting process. The director branch of the Academy determines which 5 directors are nominated for an Oscar, the music branch determines which 5 scores receive an Oscar nomination, etc. All branches vote in the Best Picture category. After the nominations are announced, everyone votes in every category to determine the winners.

    So in stage 1 people who actually know what good directing is determine the directing nominees, people who actually know what good film music is determine the original score nominations, etc. In stage 2 people who have no idea about directing vote for the best director, people who have no idea about film music vote for the best composer, etc.

    In other words, the nominations actually mean something, while an Oscar win doesn't necessarily mean more than a nomination. And guess what? Kubrick was nominated for Best Directing 4 times and Hitchcock was nominated for Best Directing 5 times! Oscar wins often are ridiculous (The King's Speech or The Artist winning Best Picture? Give me a break!) but the nominations usually really do mean something.
  • Posts: 11,119
    I'm getting tired of bad Internet connections in the Barcelona tube :-P. Please delete my 2nd duplicate post.
  • Posts: 11,119
    @PanchitoPistoles, we were thinking the same thing more or less hehe.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I know, the 'Oscars' argument has been trotted out already.

    It's always trotted out, on every thread, relentlessly. It holds absolutely no weight with me given that people like Kubrick and Hitchcock were forever overlooked. It's just a boys club and I'm utterly indifferent about Oscar winners/noms being involved with Bond films. I don't see any Oscars on Campbell's shelves, but I see one of the greatest Bond films of all time on his CV.

    Exactly. The fact that Kubrick never got an Oscar, says everything about the credibility of that award. All this talk about Oscar-worthy composers, actors, directors, etc. means absolutely nothing to me.

    Such nonsense. I call it "bad luck" really. The Oscars are, simply put, ranking games. Just turn it the other way around, in a more positive, less cynical way: Ending in the TOP 5 list is simply great (being nominated), and actually winning it is a wunderful bonus. That's how I look at the Oscars. And having said that, one can say that Kubrick had some nice Oscar nominations. A TOP 5 candidate of "Best Director" during certain given years for sure.

    On top of that.....it's about promoting your movie to screening audiences too. Had Sony promoted CR in a similar fashion like SF, then CR would have received 5 Oscar nominations as well. Blairm the movie company for that, not the Academy. Those members of the Academy were facilitated with and provided by way better looking screening kits (DVD screener, cd's of the score & song, an entire guide. Those screening packages for journalists and Academy members nowadays are lucrative items on Ebay) for SF. CR however? Terrific movies deserve prizes and awards. Period! But it also takes some cooperation from the movie company. Sony should have done better for CR with this aspect of "promotion for the Academy".

    One more thing. Since when have we become so cynical?? By jolly, give the Academy a warm hug for deserved recognition for a Bond film.....and simply a good film regardless of the franchise stamp.

    You just seem to be highlighting the fact that nominations have a lot to do with to what extent the studios are pushing their product that year.

    I'll doubtless be shot down in flames for saying this, but it there not the remotest chance that when people voted to nominate the SF soundtrack, they were a teensy weensy bit influenced by the memory of Adele's title song? My understanding is that many of the Academy members haven't even watched/listened to the various movies they're nominating or voting for, but if they'd seen Skyfall, they would doubtless have remembered the opening credit sequence.

    Highly cynical of me and apologies for casting aspersions on the doubtless highly rigorous and objective voting process that lies behind the whole Oscars jamboree.

    Having made my cynical point, I do agree that in general most nominations, and therefore winners, are generally 'worthy' on some level. Although doesn't mean they're necessarily the best that year. The Kings Speech was a poor winner, especially in the year of The Social Network. But I agree, amongst the nominees, there is usually at least one truly outstanding performance/achievement. You look back through the best picture nominations and winners and by and large, they've been decent movies. I just don't think that Newman's SF score was one of the outstanding ones. And I do believe that name recognition counts in these things.
  • Posts: 908
    RC7 wrote: »

    In other words, the nominations actually mean something, while an Oscar win doesn't necessarily mean more than a nomination. And guess what? Kubrick was nominated for Best Directing 4 times and Hitchcock was nominated for Best Directing 5 times! Oscar wins often are ridiculous (The King's Speech or The Artist winning Best Picture? Give me a break!) but the nominations usually really do mean something.

    So when Barry didn't receive a single nomination for his Bond works it means he was uninspired, bland and boring or how do I have to judge this fact?
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 908
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I know, the 'Oscars' argument has been trotted out already.

    It's always trotted out, on every thread, relentlessly. It holds absolutely no weight with me given that people like Kubrick and Hitchcock were forever overlooked. It's just a boys club and I'm utterly indifferent about Oscar winners/noms being involved with Bond films. I don't see any Oscars on Campbell's shelves, but I see one of the greatest Bond films of all time on his CV.

    Exactly. The fact that Kubrick never got an Oscar, says everything about the credibility of that award. All this talk about Oscar-worthy composers, actors, directors, etc. means absolutely nothing to me.

    Such nonsense. I call it "bad luck" really. The Oscars are, simply put, ranking games. Just turn it the other way around, in a more positive, less cynical way: Ending in the TOP 5 list is simply great (being nominated), and actually winning it is a wunderful bonus. That's how I look at the Oscars. And having said that, one can say that Kubrick had some nice Oscar nominations. A TOP 5 candidate of "Best Director" during certain given years for sure.

    On top of that.....it's about promoting your movie to screening audiences too. Had Sony promoted CR in a similar fashion like SF, then CR would have received 5 Oscar nominations as well. Blairm the movie company for that, not the Academy. Those members of the Academy were facilitated with and provided by way better looking screening kits (DVD screener, cd's of the score & song, an entire guide. Those screening packages for journalists and Academy members nowadays are lucrative items on Ebay) for SF. CR however? Terrific movies deserve prizes and awards. Period! But it also takes some cooperation from the movie company. Sony should have done better for CR with this aspect of "promotion for the Academy".

    One more thing. Since when have we become so cynical?? By jolly, give the Academy a warm hug for deserved recognition for a Bond film.....and simply a good film regardless of the franchise stamp.

    You just seem to be highlighting the fact that nominations have a lot to do with to what extent the studios are pushing their product that year.
    .

    You certainly have got a point here.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I know, the 'Oscars' argument has been trotted out already.

    It's always trotted out, on every thread, relentlessly. It holds absolutely no weight with me given that people like Kubrick and Hitchcock were forever overlooked. It's just a boys club and I'm utterly indifferent about Oscar winners/noms being involved with Bond films. I don't see any Oscars on Campbell's shelves, but I see one of the greatest Bond films of all time on his CV.

    Exactly. The fact that Kubrick never got an Oscar, says everything about the credibility of that award. All this talk about Oscar-worthy composers, actors, directors, etc. means absolutely nothing to me.

    Such nonsense. I call it "bad luck" really. The Oscars are, simply put, ranking games. Just turn it the other way around, in a more positive, less cynical way: Ending in the TOP 5 list is simply great (being nominated), and actually winning it is a wunderful bonus. That's how I look at the Oscars. And having said that, one can say that Kubrick had some nice Oscar nominations. A TOP 5 candidate of "Best Director" during certain given years for sure.

    On top of that.....it's about promoting your movie to screening audiences too. Had Sony promoted CR in a similar fashion like SF, then CR would have received 5 Oscar nominations as well. Blairm the movie company for that, not the Academy. Those members of the Academy were facilitated with and provided by way better looking screening kits (DVD screener, cd's of the score & song, an entire guide. Those screening packages for journalists and Academy members nowadays are lucrative items on Ebay) for SF. CR however? Terrific movies deserve prizes and awards. Period! But it also takes some cooperation from the movie company. Sony should have done better for CR with this aspect of "promotion for the Academy".

    One more thing. Since when have we become so cynical?? By jolly, give the Academy a warm hug for deserved recognition for a Bond film.....and simply a good film regardless of the franchise stamp.

    You just seem to be highlighting the fact that nominations have a lot to do with to what extent the studios are pushing their product that year.
    .

    You certainly have got a point here.

    "just seem"? My post is more elaborate than that. In any case, it's not fair to spit out disregard solely at the Academy. "Blaim" Sony for that if you really are so much against the Oscars.

    I remember back in the old days that Bond fans were blaiming the Academy for not receiving any recognition. 5 Oscar nominations and 2 wins later, after SF, and fans say that these Awards are still ludicrous.

    Why can't people just be..."Happy".....that a Bond film got so much recognition. Only because some spoiled fans in hindsight want to redistribute these Oscars from one Bond film to another Bond film? Really.
  • Posts: 908
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I know, the 'Oscars' argument has been trotted out already.

    It's always trotted out, on every thread, relentlessly. It holds absolutely no weight with me given that people like Kubrick and Hitchcock were forever overlooked. It's just a boys club and I'm utterly indifferent about Oscar winners/noms being involved with Bond films. I don't see any Oscars on Campbell's shelves, but I see one of the greatest Bond films of all time on his CV.

    Exactly. The fact that Kubrick never got an Oscar, says everything about the credibility of that award. All this talk about Oscar-worthy composers, actors, directors, etc. means absolutely nothing to me.

    Such nonsense. I call it "bad luck" really. The Oscars are, simply put, ranking games. Just turn it the other way around, in a more positive, less cynical way: Ending in the TOP 5 list is simply great (being nominated), and actually winning it is a wunderful bonus. That's how I look at the Oscars. And having said that, one can say that Kubrick had some nice Oscar nominations. A TOP 5 candidate of "Best Director" during certain given years for sure.

    On top of that.....it's about promoting your movie to screening audiences too. Had Sony promoted CR in a similar fashion like SF, then CR would have received 5 Oscar nominations as well. Blairm the movie company for that, not the Academy. Those members of the Academy were facilitated with and provided by way better looking screening kits (DVD screener, cd's of the score & song, an entire guide. Those screening packages for journalists and Academy members nowadays are lucrative items on Ebay) for SF. CR however? Terrific movies deserve prizes and awards. Period! But it also takes some cooperation from the movie company. Sony should have done better for CR with this aspect of "promotion for the Academy".

    One more thing. Since when have we become so cynical?? By jolly, give the Academy a warm hug for deserved recognition for a Bond film.....and simply a good film regardless of the franchise stamp.

    You just seem to be highlighting the fact that nominations have a lot to do with to what extent the studios are pushing their product that year.
    .

    You certainly have got a point here.

    "just seem"? My post is more elaborate than that. In any case, it's not fair to spit out disregard solely at the Academy. "Blaim" Sony for that if you really are so much against the Oscars.


    Why can't people just be..."Happy".....that a Bond film got so much recognition. Only because some spoiled fans in hindsight want to redistribute these Oscars from one Bond film to another Bond film? Really.

    Doubtless you are talking about that kind of spoiled fans,that admire quality and not awards, aren't you?
    About the Sony line. I really don't get it (do you blame them for not bribing enough,when CR came out?) Could you please elaborate?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    It's always trotted out, on every thread, relentlessly. It holds absolutely no weight with me given that people like Kubrick and Hitchcock were forever overlooked

    You (and most people here) clearly have no idea about the Academy Award voting process. The director branch of the Academy determines which 5 directors are nominated for an Oscar, the music branch determines which 5 scores receive an Oscar nomination, etc. All branches vote in the Best Picture category. After the nominations are announced, everyone votes in every category to determine the winners.

    So in stage 1 people who actually know what good directing is determine the directing nominees, people who actually know what good film music is determine the original score nominations, etc. In stage 2 people who have no idea about directing vote for the best director, people who have no idea about film music vote for the best composer, etc.

    In other words, the nominations actually mean something, while an Oscar win doesn't necessarily mean more than a nomination. And guess what? Kubrick was nominated for Best Directing 4 times and Hitchcock was nominated for Best Directing 5 times! Oscar wins often are ridiculous (The King's Speech or The Artist winning Best Picture? Give me a break!) but the nominations usually really do mean something.

    What means something to me is the feeling I get when I step out of a film. I don't need it to be validated by the academy or anyone else. I don't sit and watch an academy award winning film and think, 'This won the academy award, it must be good'. It's judged on its merits as a film, in my eyes, not through the prism of industry professionals. It's the same as any awards ceremony in the creative industries, by it's very nature relatively meaningless underneath the glitz and glamour and bullshit.You can try an objectify these things, but essentially it is at a base level, meaningless. I can say, 'The King's Speech' is an incredibly mediocre film and there's nothing the Academy can do to add polish to that turd. So when people trot out Oscars and Globes etc, it doesn't make a point anymore valid.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,119
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I know, the 'Oscars' argument has been trotted out already.

    It's always trotted out, on every thread, relentlessly. It holds absolutely no weight with me given that people like Kubrick and Hitchcock were forever overlooked. It's just a boys club and I'm utterly indifferent about Oscar winners/noms being involved with Bond films. I don't see any Oscars on Campbell's shelves, but I see one of the greatest Bond films of all time on his CV.

    Exactly. The fact that Kubrick never got an Oscar, says everything about the credibility of that award. All this talk about Oscar-worthy composers, actors, directors, etc. means absolutely nothing to me.

    Such nonsense. I call it "bad luck" really. The Oscars are, simply put, ranking games. Just turn it the other way around, in a more positive, less cynical way: Ending in the TOP 5 list is simply great (being nominated), and actually winning it is a wunderful bonus. That's how I look at the Oscars. And having said that, one can say that Kubrick had some nice Oscar nominations. A TOP 5 candidate of "Best Director" during certain given years for sure.

    On top of that.....it's about promoting your movie to screening audiences too. Had Sony promoted CR in a similar fashion like SF, then CR would have received 5 Oscar nominations as well. Blairm the movie company for that, not the Academy. Those members of the Academy were facilitated with and provided by way better looking screening kits (DVD screener, cd's of the score & song, an entire guide. Those screening packages for journalists and Academy members nowadays are lucrative items on Ebay) for SF. CR however? Terrific movies deserve prizes and awards. Period! But it also takes some cooperation from the movie company. Sony should have done better for CR with this aspect of "promotion for the Academy".

    One more thing. Since when have we become so cynical?? By jolly, give the Academy a warm hug for deserved recognition for a Bond film.....and simply a good film regardless of the franchise stamp.

    You just seem to be highlighting the fact that nominations have a lot to do with to what extent the studios are pushing their product that year.
    .

    You certainly have got a point here.

    "just seem"? My post is more elaborate than that. In any case, it's not fair to spit out disregard solely at the Academy. "Blaim" Sony for that if you really are so much against the Oscars.


    Why can't people just be..."Happy".....that a Bond film got so much recognition. Only because some spoiled fans in hindsight want to redistribute these Oscars from one Bond film to another Bond film? Really.

    Doubtless you are talking about that kind of spoiled fans,that admire quality and not awards, aren't you?
    About the Sony line. I really don't get it (do you blame them for not bribing enough,when CR came out?) Could you please elaborate?

    What's there to elaborate? This is what I meant:
    skyfall4.jpg
    skyfall-for-your-consideration-2.jpg
    skyfall-for-your-consideration-3.jpg
    skyfall-for-your-consideration-4.jpg

    You may call it a "bribing effort" from Columbia Pictures (Sony), MGM and EON Productions. I don't mind if you use such words...with such "disproportional cynical untrue weight" attached to it. But I just see a movie company that was also convinced in its success...ánd its quality. Hence the extra "For Your Consideration"-promotional effort.

    It was the first time that Sony decided to release not just two, but four of these promo-posters. One of these posters this time around was specifically focussing on the "Best Picture" category. And another one specifically mentioned Roger Ebert's quotes.

    On top of that Sony made sure that this time around there were way more "For Your Consideration"-kits for press and Academy Award members for each category. Not just a cheap-looking DVD-case like this one! It's as if it was a cheap illegal copy:
    CR_BAFTA-promo-dvd1.jpg

    And I think "Casino Royale" deserved a better "For Your Consideration"-kit. Like these ones:
    20131122_155326.jpg
    Complete luxury booklets, with plentiful information for the Academy Member who is elligible to vote in a particular category. By the way, for the first time "For Your Consideration"-kits for the category "Best Score" and "Best Song" were made. I can't find an image from the full "Skyfall-For Your Consideration"-DVD-package, but I know it was a stunning booklet.....and by now a very expensive collector's item among movie fans (not just Bond fans)....:
    SKYFALL_FYC_ALBUM-1.jpg
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYGkzIPVELIbGdNKqsntOzI2kpcssvgR2j9UZpvYK4f8RaiSfy

    And for the ones who don't know how this works, have a look at an official ballot. By the way, this is how it works with the "Golden Palm" award, the "Emmy's" and the "Golden Globes" as well, the latter being open for voting not by certain "Academy members", but for accreditated press from the Hollywood Press Association:
    oscar-ballots-20091.jpg
    As you can see, this has nothing to do with bribing. It's all about voting. See it as a competition. Nothing more, nothing less. Academy members who want to vote for "Skyfall", simply put it in their TOP 5. They had the possibility to do that with "Casino Royale" too. My guess is, that many Academy members back in 2006 didn't thought of "Casino Royale" when they had to fill out the ballot. Simply because Sony/EON Productions at that time didn't give much for extensive "For Your Consideration" promotion.

    With "Skyfall" that changed considerably. You can't blaim movie companies for "bribing", because also EON Productions (Barbara & Michael Wilson) apparently think the Oscars can be worthy promotion as well. And not only that, they [Barbara & Michael] now know that Bond is worthy of an Oscar too, thus the suave spy needs a proper treatment on the way to the voting ballot!

    My question for you @Matt_Helm: What's wrong with all this really?!?! I think it's wunderful that Mr Bond finally gets recognition at the Oscars. Partially because Sony/EON gave it a better push, but ALSO because Academy members were willing to vote for it.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 908
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I know, the 'Oscars' argument has been trotted out already.

    It's always trotted out, on every thread, relentlessly. It holds absolutely no weight with me given that people like Kubrick and Hitchcock were forever overlooked. It's just a boys club and I'm utterly indifferent about Oscar winners/noms being involved with Bond films. I don't see any Oscars on Campbell's shelves, but I see one of the greatest Bond films of all time on his CV.

    Exactly. The fact that Kubrick never got an Oscar, says everything about the credibility of that award. All this talk about Oscar-worthy composers, actors, directors, etc. means absolutely nothing to me.

    Such nonsense. I call it "bad luck" really. The Oscars are, simply put, ranking games. Just turn it the other way around, in a more positive, less cynical way: Ending in the TOP 5 list is simply great (being nominated), and actually winning it is a wunderful bonus. That's how I look at the Oscars. And having said that, one can say that Kubrick had some nice Oscar nominations. A TOP 5 candidate of "Best Director" during certain given years for sure.

    On top of that.....it's about promoting your movie to screening audiences too. Had Sony promoted CR in a similar fashion like SF, then CR would have received 5 Oscar nominations as well. Blairm the movie company for that, not the Academy. Those members of the Academy were facilitated with and provided by way better looking screening kits (DVD screener, cd's of the score & song, an entire guide. Those screening packages for journalists and Academy members nowadays are lucrative items on Ebay) for SF. CR however? Terrific movies deserve prizes and awards. Period! But it also takes some cooperation from the movie company. Sony should have done better for CR with this aspect of "promotion for the Academy".

    One more thing. Since when have we become so cynical?? By jolly, give the Academy a warm hug for deserved recognition for a Bond film.....and simply a good film regardless of the franchise stamp.

    You just seem to be highlighting the fact that nominations have a lot to do with to what extent the studios are pushing their product that year.
    .

    You certainly have got a point here.

    "just seem"? My post is more elaborate than that. In any case, it's not fair to spit out disregard solely at the Academy. "Blaim" Sony for that if you really are so much against the Oscars.


    Why can't people just be..."Happy".....that a Bond film got so much recognition. Only because some spoiled fans in hindsight want to redistribute these Oscars from one Bond film to another Bond film? Really.

    Doubtless you are talking about that kind of spoiled fans,that admire quality and not awards, aren't you?
    About the Sony line. I really don't get it (do you blame them for not bribing enough,when CR came out?) Could you please elaborate?

    What's there to elaborate? This is what I meant:

    You may call it a "bribing effort" from Columbia Pictures (Sony), MGM and EON Productions. I don't mind if you use such words...with such "disproportional cynical untrue weight" attached to it. But I just see a movie company that was also convinced in its success...ánd its quality. Hence the extra "For Your Consideration"-promotional effort.

    It was the first time that Sony decided to release not just two, but four of these promo-posters. One of these posters this time around was specifically focussing on the "Best Picture" category. And another one specifically mentioned Roger Ebert's quotes.

    On top of that Sony made sure that this time around there were way more "For Your Consideration"-kits for press and Academy Award members for each category. Not just a cheap-looking DVD-case like this one! It's as if it was a cheap illegal copy:


    And I think "Casino Royale" deserved a better "For Your Consideration"-kit. Like these ones:
    Complete luxury booklets, with plentiful information for the Academy Member who is elligible to vote in a particular category. By the way, for the first time "For Your Consideration"-kits for the category "Best Score" and "Best Song" were made. I can't find an image from the full "Skyfall-For Your Consideration"-DVD-package, but I know it was a stunning booklet.....and by now a very expensive collector's item among movie fans (not just Bond fans)....:


    And for the ones who don't know how this works, have a look at an official ballot. By the way, this is how it works with the "Golden Palm" award, the "Emmy's" and the "Golden Globes" as well, the latter being open for voting not by certain "Academy members", but for accreditated press from the Hollywood Press Association:

    As you can see, this has nothing to do with bribing. It's all about voting. See it as a competition. Nothing more, nothing less. Academy members who want to vote for "Skyfall", simply put it in their TOP 5. They had the possibility to do that with "Casino Royale" too. My guess is, that many Academy members back in 2006 didn't thought of "Casino Royale" when they had to fill out the ballot. Simply because Sony/EON Productions at that time didn't give much for extensive "For Your Consideration" promotion.

    With "Skyfall" that changed considerably. You can't blaim movie companies for "bribing", because also EON Productions (Barbara & Michael Wilson) apparently think the Oscars can be worthy promotion as well. And not only that, they [Barbara & Michael] now know that Bond is worthy of an Oscar too, thus the suave spy needs a proper treatment on the way to the voting ballot!

    My question for you @Matt_Helm: What's wrong with all this really?!?! I think it's wunderful that Mr Bond finally gets recognition at the Oscars. Partially because Sony/EON gave it a better push, but ALSO because Academy members were willing to vote for it.

    Do I get this right? You are praising the Academy's taste as if their taste counts for something and by the same token you claim their verdict is dependent on how they get their DVDs / Blu-rays presented?
    About your question. I'd prefer them getting recognition for quality traits (which apart from its looks SF hasn't got too many) and not pretensions and delusions of grandeur of its director,writer and composer,but that's just me.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,119
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I know, the 'Oscars' argument has been trotted out already.

    It's always trotted out, on every thread, relentlessly. It holds absolutely no weight with me given that people like Kubrick and Hitchcock were forever overlooked. It's just a boys club and I'm utterly indifferent about Oscar winners/noms being involved with Bond films. I don't see any Oscars on Campbell's shelves, but I see one of the greatest Bond films of all time on his CV.

    Exactly. The fact that Kubrick never got an Oscar, says everything about the credibility of that award. All this talk about Oscar-worthy composers, actors, directors, etc. means absolutely nothing to me.

    Such nonsense. I call it "bad luck" really. The Oscars are, simply put, ranking games. Just turn it the other way around, in a more positive, less cynical way: Ending in the TOP 5 list is simply great (being nominated), and actually winning it is a wunderful bonus. That's how I look at the Oscars. And having said that, one can say that Kubrick had some nice Oscar nominations. A TOP 5 candidate of "Best Director" during certain given years for sure.

    On top of that.....it's about promoting your movie to screening audiences too. Had Sony promoted CR in a similar fashion like SF, then CR would have received 5 Oscar nominations as well. Blairm the movie company for that, not the Academy. Those members of the Academy were facilitated with and provided by way better looking screening kits (DVD screener, cd's of the score & song, an entire guide. Those screening packages for journalists and Academy members nowadays are lucrative items on Ebay) for SF. CR however? Terrific movies deserve prizes and awards. Period! But it also takes some cooperation from the movie company. Sony should have done better for CR with this aspect of "promotion for the Academy".

    One more thing. Since when have we become so cynical?? By jolly, give the Academy a warm hug for deserved recognition for a Bond film.....and simply a good film regardless of the franchise stamp.

    You just seem to be highlighting the fact that nominations have a lot to do with to what extent the studios are pushing their product that year.
    .

    You certainly have got a point here.

    "just seem"? My post is more elaborate than that. In any case, it's not fair to spit out disregard solely at the Academy. "Blaim" Sony for that if you really are so much against the Oscars.


    Why can't people just be..."Happy".....that a Bond film got so much recognition. Only because some spoiled fans in hindsight want to redistribute these Oscars from one Bond film to another Bond film? Really.

    Doubtless you are talking about that kind of spoiled fans,that admire quality and not awards, aren't you?
    About the Sony line. I really don't get it (do you blame them for not bribing enough,when CR came out?) Could you please elaborate?

    What's there to elaborate? This is what I meant:

    You may call it a "bribing effort" from Columbia Pictures (Sony), MGM and EON Productions. I don't mind if you use such words...with such "disproportional cynical untrue weight" attached to it. But I just see a movie company that was also convinced in its success...ánd its quality. Hence the extra "For Your Consideration"-promotional effort.

    It was the first time that Sony decided to release not just two, but four of these promo-posters. One of these posters this time around was specifically focussing on the "Best Picture" category. And another one specifically mentioned Roger Ebert's quotes.

    On top of that Sony made sure that this time around there were way more "For Your Consideration"-kits for press and Academy Award members for each category. Not just a cheap-looking DVD-case like this one! It's as if it was a cheap illegal copy:


    And I think "Casino Royale" deserved a better "For Your Consideration"-kit. Like these ones:
    Complete luxury booklets, with plentiful information for the Academy Member who is elligible to vote in a particular category. By the way, for the first time "For Your Consideration"-kits for the category "Best Score" and "Best Song" were made. I can't find an image from the full "Skyfall-For Your Consideration"-DVD-package, but I know it was a stunning booklet.....and by now a very expensive collector's item among movie fans (not just Bond fans)....:


    And for the ones who don't know how this works, have a look at an official ballot. By the way, this is how it works with the "Golden Palm" award, the "Emmy's" and the "Golden Globes" as well, the latter being open for voting not by certain "Academy members", but for accreditated press from the Hollywood Press Association:

    As you can see, this has nothing to do with bribing. It's all about voting. See it as a competition. Nothing more, nothing less. Academy members who want to vote for "Skyfall", simply put it in their TOP 5. They had the possibility to do that with "Casino Royale" too. My guess is, that many Academy members back in 2006 didn't thought of "Casino Royale" when they had to fill out the ballot. Simply because Sony/EON Productions at that time didn't give much for extensive "For Your Consideration" promotion.

    With "Skyfall" that changed considerably. You can't blaim movie companies for "bribing", because also EON Productions (Barbara & Michael Wilson) apparently think the Oscars can be worthy promotion as well. And not only that, they [Barbara & Michael] now know that Bond is worthy of an Oscar too, thus the suave spy needs a proper treatment on the way to the voting ballot!

    My question for you @Matt_Helm: What's wrong with all this really?!?! I think it's wunderful that Mr Bond finally gets recognition at the Oscars. Partially because Sony/EON gave it a better push, but ALSO because Academy members were willing to vote for it.

    Do I get this right? You are praising the Academy's taste as if their taste counts for something and by the same token you claim their verdict is dependent on how they get their DVDs / Blu-rays presented?
    About your question. I'd prefer them getting recognition for quality traits (which apart from its looks SF hasn't got too many) and not pretensions and delusions of grandeur of its director,writer and composer,but that's just me.

    No, you are not getting it right really. I am not praising the Academy. I'm highlighting how it works really. I think you know pretty damn well that an Academy member is not voting for the sheer presentation of it all. If you think that, well dear, then I can understand why you think the Academy is full of bribing criminals. If you think, that Academy members are all dumb shitheads voting for a movie when the press kit looks better, well that kinda explains your cynicism.

    Anyway, it does help if they feel ready/willing to open the kit, and watch the movie in full....so that they can, finally, really judge a Bond film properly. And it does help, if there are plentiful of these kits, so that every Academy member can judge it. How the hell can an Academy member vote for a score if he/she hasn't got a proper "For Your Consideration"-kit in the first place?? What about invalid or older Academy members, who have no means of joining screening sessions??

    I'm glad to explain all of this later on, but you are very good at formulating questions with loads of assumptions, that are causing headaches for proper formulating a set of counter-arguments. And such questions........well, it's kinda tiresome you know? Just be happy, critical, but happy. And in your comments, you might highlight Sony and EON as well.

    By the way, whar do you like about Thomas Newman and his music scores? This is foremost an appreciation topic you know. And an Oscar nomination is a great appreciation for the man....
  • Thomas Newman did a fantastic job for "SKYFALL" but I wish they'd bring back David Arnold, period.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Well, I enjoyed looking at the Oscar materials; thanks for sharing.

    Awards systems do have some merit, including the Academy Awards. I don't write them off entirely. I'm happy Skyfall had those nominations and wins.
  • Posts: 158
    James Southall's Skyfall review:
    http://www.movie-wave.net/skyfall/

    Thomas Newman's reaction:


    There's many other Bond soundtrack reviews worth checking up on at movie-wave
  • Posts: 11,425
    Southall's review is total nonsense, although several of the comments below it capture my thoughts, such as 'All in all, Thomas Newman’s terrible Skyfall score is a very sad day for film music and those that enjoy listening to it and an equally sad day for the Bond franchise.' and 'He’s turned out a score that could belong to any action film coming out of Hollywood today.'
  • YES! I am thrilled ;-). He's back for "SPECTRE" :-D!! Post in here to show your appreciation for Thomas Newman.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited December 2014 Posts: 1,731
    David Arnold was a bondfan making music for the movies - Newman is a genuine composer who is just still looking to find the right sound for Bond. That is the difference.

    SF has echoes of a good score, but it didn't do it for me at all.

    Like Mendes, Thomas Newman has definite talent and he's shown it well in the past. That talent just didn't make an appearance in SF for me. But I do think they will improve this time around, so I am optimistic.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    He's only had one shot at it, and it was not bad by any means. I found it quite refreshing actually.

    He will improve this time around. The score will be epic. Everyone is going to 'up' their game for this movie, believe me.
Sign In or Register to comment.