Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Jason Adams, Jan 20, 2003.
I copied this from the commanderbond.net forums, so excuse the James Bond slant.
IIRC, TTT's score was made eligable earlier this week. I think they are taking it on more of a per case basis. Still though...not the greatest rule ever.
The rule change has *not* been implemented, yet.
Well, I don't know that this is necessarily a bad rule. To a certain extent, I would hope that it would be unnecessary because the voters would naturally give more weight to a 100% new score than one which reuses themes from a prior work.
From The Godfather Part II and The Empire Strikes Back to The Two Towers, some of the very best scores have been sequels that have used previous thematic material to tie the scores together. This decision is just...
Utter bullcrap. A score should rest on it's own merits, weither for a sequel or not. If the best score of the year is for a sequel, it damn well better have a shot at winning.
This does appear to be a stupid rule. The Empire Strikes Back was a great soundtrack on it's own and worthy of Oscar consideration. Can't remember what won for 1980 though? I also predict (hoping) that Return Of The King will be as memorable sounding as FOTR. It will have The Fellowship/Two Towers feel but will also have themes even more personal that will stand on their own.
Does this mean that Dumb and Dumberererer is not eligible? :wink:
I wouldn't have a problem with it if they would reinstate the separate categories for Original Score and Musical or Adapted Score, which they had until 1978. For some years since, they have reinstated the categories on a special case basis, but they've been renamed Best Original Dramatic Score and Best Original Musical or Comedy Score -- which would rule many films out.
It would make much more sense to say a score has to be, say, 95% original. What would have happened to Close Encounters? Would it have been ineligible because it contained a few lines from "When You Wish Upon A Star"? Extended to writing categories, would Woody Allen's "Play It Again, Sam" not have been eligible, since it quotes lines from Humphrey Bogart movies?
I think I'm going to write a letter to the Academy. If they're going to start enforcing this rule next year, the least they can do is reinstate the Adapted Score category.
This is crap. Where's the line? E.T. had a quote of Yoda's theme as the kind in the Yoda costume passes by. Empire, as has been mentioned, is an incredible work, one of Williams best. It took what had been established int eh first movie, and successfully expanded on it and took it to new heights. Sequels I'd say are even tougher to do (good ones at least) then 100% originals because you have to take the original music, expand upon it, bring in new themes, but not deviate too much from what has already been established previously. Some of the best scores have been for sequels, too arbitrarily eliminate them just because they're not totally new is just mindless.
The Academy has struggled with awarding and defining music for a long time. IMHO, each time they change the rules or definitions--and oh boy, there have been more than a handful--it shows their incompetance and a lack of commitment to this integral part of movies. It almost seems as if the Academy is often only following trends to amend their rules in order to "fix" a problem. Here are some links from FilmScoreMonthly just for those who aren't familiar with what the Academy has done in the past, they are must reads.
This seems silly - it's like they're fixing a problem that doesn't exist. I don't recall that there have been a huge number of sequel scores nominated in recent years, so I wonder what prompted this??
I'm just a bit puzzled why the Academy would implement a new rule specifically for sequels when they already have a rule disqualifying films with more than a certain percentage of "non-original" music. It just seems redundant.
This will make it extremenly difficult for composer's that use the leitmotif method of scoring to be awarded for their work.
And let us not forget the 3rd Star Wars episode!!
If that Academy is gonna disallow nominees that "use score elements from previous films", what does this mean for composers like James Horner who are constantly ripping themselves off? You think I'm being a smartass(which I am), but this idiotic new rule opens up a major Pandora's box if you interpret its meaning literally.
Another thing that concerns me is this rule may prompt directors to switch composers or ditch recurring motifs when doing a sequel just so the score can qualify for an Oscar.
Bah, if anyone feels like being eligible (not even guaranteed to be nominated, much less win) is more important then having a top notch composer like Williams or Goldsmith, they're nuts. I'd rather have a John Williams score then be eligible to be nominated to win an Oscar, especially in a more esoteric category like score.
Why stop there? Let's forbid sequels in all other categories too!
Best Original Screenplay can't possible be allowed to have sequel nominees, since they are using characters and themes from the first movie. Best Picture? Now that's a joke, the picture is a sequel and has an unfair advantage because of familiarity. Best Male Actor? Oh come on, he did that role last year! Why nominate him this year?