 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has enough cowbell, but needs more Toto.
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 25, 2021 - 11:03 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Octoberman
(Member)
|
I've given each of the Zimmer tracks a couple of listens, and my opinion is not a positive one.
Do not read further if you are a Zimmer apologist.
I went into it hoping that he would have tried something different, but it's more of the same-old, same-old.
I don't know how or why, but he's way past the point of musical innovation and long into musical self-parody.
I think a lot of his early work had something to say, but those days are a distant memory.
"Paul's Theme", specifically, would not sound out of place in a South Park movie--where it's at least MEANT to be a parody.
It's merely unappealing for the first 4:48, and when the faux-Arabic wailing starts it becomes almost a musical equivalent of blackface.
(There is NO passage in the book that suggests the culture of Arrakis is rooted or even comparable to past-or-present-day Arabic culture.)
"Ripples In The Sand" is less egregious by virtue of it being forgettable.
Where does the responsibility lay for such a misfire?
Zimmer, for having such a limited musical palette?
His "committee", so that no particular one of them can be singled out for blame?
Villeneuve, for hiring Zimmer in the first place, knowing full well what the end result would be?
I tend to feel it's the last option.
Maybe Villeneuve is not quite the innovative auteur we wish he was.
I'm still going to see the film, not just because I adore the book but also because it looks like the visuals might be occasionally impressive.
But if I enjoy it, it will be despite the score--not because of the score.
Maybe it's our fault for expecting too much.
Yes, I was a tough critic on these tracks.
But I'm sick of this hackneyed, lowest-common-denominator stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Octoberman, your post is very revealing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 25, 2021 - 11:52 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
I've given each of the Zimmer tracks a couple of listens, and my opinion is not a positive one.
Do not read further if you are a Zimmer apologist.
I went into it hoping that he would have tried something different, but it's more of the same-old, same-old.
I don't know how or why, but he's way past the point of musical innovation and long into musical self-parody.
I think a lot of his early work had something to say, but those days are a distant memory.
"Paul's Theme", specifically, would not sound out of place in a South Park movie--where it's at least MEANT to be a parody.
It's merely unappealing for the first 4:48, and when the faux-Arabic wailing starts it becomes almost a musical equivalent of blackface.
(There is NO passage in the book that suggests the culture of Arrakis is rooted or even comparable to past-or-present-day Arabic culture.)
"Ripples In The Sand" is less egregious by virtue of it being forgettable.
Where does the responsibility lay for such a misfire?
Zimmer, for having such a limited musical palette?
His "committee", so that no particular one of them can be singled out for blame?
Villeneuve, for hiring Zimmer in the first place, knowing full well what the end result would be?
I tend to feel it's the last option.
Maybe Villeneuve is not quite the innovative auteur we wish he was.
I'm still going to see the film, not just because I adore the book but also because it looks like the visuals might be occasionally impressive.
But if I enjoy it, it will be despite the score--not because of the score.
Maybe it's our fault for expecting too much.
Yes, I was a tough critic on these tracks.
But I'm sick of this hackneyed, lowest-common-denominator stuff.
More importantly who really ghost wrote Wonder Woman 84?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
