Eric Paddon wrote:For me, 83 is the first big movie summer I remember well.
Yeah, '83 was a good one too!
Blue Thunder (first R-rated movie I ever saw. I was 14)
War Games
Return Of The Jedi
Octopussy (Four times I saw it. First 007 film theatrically for me)
Superman III (bad but it was an event)
Some great scores that year as well...
Twilight Zone: The Movie
Krull
Under Fire
Brainstorm
Savage Islands
The Beastmaster
The Right Stuff
Eric Paddon wrote:For me, 83 is the first big movie summer I remember well.
Yeah, '83 was a good one too!
Blue Thunder (first R-rated movie I ever saw. I was 14)
War Games
Return Of The Jedi
Octopussy (Four times I saw it. First 007 film theatrically for me)
Superman III (bad but it was an event)
Some great scores that year as well...
Twilight Zone: The Movie
Krull
Under Fire
Brainstorm
Savage Islands
The Beastmaster
The Right Stuff
SAVAGE ISLANDS? Do you mean NATE AND HAYES?
That's a terrible movie though...I don't recall the score (Jones, right?), I'll have to check it out again!
One quick correction to a MUCH earlier post by Paul - He lists First Blood as coming out in the summer of 82. It actually came out before Christmas that year. Summer 82 was when we got Rocky III. But he was close.
I agree with all concerned about "Wrath of Khan" being the best of the Trek films. I remember seeing it when it came out, and I remember reading up on a lot of the material about its production. The SE DVD of it is also a help, although it doesn't go into a whole lot of depth about what was happening during the shoot.
I agree with Eric Paddon that this was the last film that had a really serious dramatic impact. This stemmed from Leonard Nimoy's stated wish to not return to the role. The only way they got him interested was to offer him a way to end the character. (That's a far cry from the way it got played up - that he insisted on killing the character, or that his contract stipulated that he wanted the character killed - it simply was the one idea that appealed to him and the filmmakers at the time.) It's also interesting that the film essentially evolved from five different scripts that had almost completely different plots. (You can still find these scripts today if you look for them) The key to making it work was Nicholas Meyer's ability to pull the best elements of each script, and throw them into a single story. And he also was able to do spot rewrites that convinced both Nimoy and William Shatner that he was actually hearing their concerns and addressing their characters.
One of the biggest advantages for me of the 2nd film was actually the lack of budget, as even Meyer admits. They couldn't spend the money thrown into the first film, so they focused on the characters, and got a much better film as a result.
In retrospect, the first film isn't as bad as originally thought, but it still is really REALLY slow with a lot of unnecessarily lengthy special effects sequences. But if you look at the recut version Robert Wise finished before his death for DVD, it actually flows pretty well, and there's a surprising amount of heart in it. There are some really questionable choices made - trying to film in the Enterprise in sealed sets like a real ship was disastrous for the cast and crew, and it doesn't look any better for it; the casting of the beautiful Persis Khambatta only to cut off her hair and give her some truly atrocious dialogue; and above all else, starting production without a completed script, and pinning the cast and crew between Harold Livingston and Gene Roddenberry as they battled over the rewrites, etc. But TMP does hold up, again particularly on the 2001 DVD. (Before that DVD, Robert Wise would not talk about the film, as he felt he was never given the chance to finish it. Once he was able to do that for the DVD, he began making public appearances, including at Trek conventions, to talk about it.) Also, I appreciated that a lot of work was done on the TMP DVD to make sure that the small number of CGI shots done to complete some effects sequences were designed to cut into the original effects - including film grain and technological limitations.
As for the other films, they varied in quality. I felt III was weaker than II in many areas - it was a lot more like a long TV episode. IV was absolutely a better film. I suppose many things can be read into its conclusion, with Kirk being demoted - but it was an established story point that Kirk had been mistaken to accept promotion to the admiralty and was a lot happier to complete his career as a shiphandler. (There are certainly parallels in reality of command officers who have preferred to avoid flag rank.) I can see the perception of that negating the passage of time, but my perception there is that it just shows that he and his bosses have realized that's the best place for him to be. I remember enjoying V when it came out, but it has really pejorated since then. Where the humor in IV still holds up (primarily due to Nicholas Meyer's scripting and the cast chemistry), V really has some groaners in it. I agree that Shatner really got shafted in the budget, but if you look at what he planned to do with it, it wouldn't have been much better - the story was pretty feeble to start with.
Star Trek VI is actually my 2nd favorite of the films, because it does address the issue of aging again, for the first time since II. It establishes that Sulu is now captain of another vessel and everyone else is on the verge of retirement. I would have liked to see this film get a bigger budget, particularly given the more elaborate opening that would have established where everyone ended up, but Paramount was in a cost-cutting mode - and once again, Nicholas Meyer got handed the smaller budget. I don't think he was as successful with it on this go-round - II had a lot more story and character material, and the Scooby-Doo type stuff really didn't help. (My strong impression is that Meyer was a lot cockier on this film, and that attitude really didn't help) But I feel it was overall a more dignified way to send everyone off, even if Paramount wouldn't give it the budget to do so in style.
As for the TNG films, I remember liking Generations when it first came out, but with some reservations. Like Trek V, the film has pejorated a lot since then, particularly the painful stuff with Data, and the more maudlin material about Picard's family. I still think Malcolm McDowell gives a good performance, but the script doesn't give him much to work with. And the killing of Kirk feels really perfunctory. Of the other TNG films, I appreciated Nemesis the most, as it addressed that this would be the end of the line for this cast, and tied most things up. On the other hand, I really wish the whole B4 story had been chucked out the window, and the killing of Data reeks of trying to replay Trek II.
TNG as a series actually turned out fairly well, once it got going. I completely empathize with Eric Paddon for not wanting to watch the show after the pilot episode. I had the same reaction with "ER" - I saw the pilot, said "This has been done before and better", and walked away. But with TNG, things actually did get better in fits and starts. The first season has some really good episodes mixed in with the dross. And once they got to an episode appropriately titled "Coming of Age", things REALLY improved - the scripts got better and the cast began to really gel. Over the next couple of years, the series continued to improve, and if you look at the 3rd and 4th seasons, you'll see a lot of good shows. The Borg episodes "Q Who" and "Best of Both Worlds" are some of the best episodes of any Star Trek series. Another episode in the 3rd season, "Yesterday's Enterprise" stands out. I think the series started to falter a bit during the 5th season - after a pretty strong start of 8 or 9 good shows, they settled into a mode of "ship in danger" b-stories while they explored the guest child of the week. (I wish I could say that was a joke - it isn't.) The 6th season started out in bigger trouble, with only a couple of good ones in the first 10 eps, but suddenly figured itself out with an outstanding 2-parter called "Chain of Command", and followed that one up with another outstanding piece called "Ship in a Bottle". The 7th and last season of TNG was its lowest point for me - it was pretty clear they were out of ideas, and the result were more bad episodes than even the first season had. There were exceptions - "Lower Decks" in particular, but it's a long slog before you get to the last episode "All Good Things", which was head and shoulders above the stuff that had aired for the months prior to it.
I won't even go into the other Trek series, as I think they dropped in overall quality the farther they got away from the original concept, but I will allow that each series had the occasional flashes of light.
I was personally relieved to see the last series end, and I had thought that the franchise would be given a rest for a good 10 years at least before anyone tried to do something with it. I have mixed emotions about hearing JJ Abrams wants to play with it. I personally think it's still a bit too soon, unless someone has an amazing story they want to tell. If it is in fact a complete restart of the whole thing, I don't really understand the point.
Regarding the original series, I think they had some wonderful episodes there, almost all of which were in the first and second seasons. If you look at the DVD season sets that have been released, the quality REALLY drops in the 3rd season as most of the creative staff leave - including Roddenberry, Gene Coon (the real heart of the writing staff), cameraman Jerry Finnerman, producer Bob Justman (who was the real showrunner, although he was never acknowledged as such), and directors Joe Pevney and Marc Daniels. The series really whimpered to its finish, with a slashed budget, almost no location footage, and stories that amounted to what Bob Justman later admitted were pretty much "radio shows". It's really distressing to see that happen, but when you have the full season in front of you, it becomes pretty hard to deny.
One of the great achievements of Star Trek II was that it restored the series to its former quality for the first time since the middle of the original show's second season. And it contains some surprisingly good acting throughout. (Even Pauline Kael admitted at the time to appreciating Shatner's performance at the film's conclusion)
And Star Trek II made it possible for all the other Trek series since then, for better or worse.
For Eric Paddon, I would recommend that he look at any of the following eps of TNG if he would ever like to reconsider his feelings about that series:
1. "Heart of Glory" - Season 1
2. "Where None Have Gone Before" - Season 1
3. "Q Who" - Season 2
4. "Measure of a Man" - Season 2
5. "Yesterday's Enterprise" - Season 3
6. "Best of Both Worlds pts 1 & 2" - Season 3-4
7. "Family" - Season 4
8. "Darmok" - Season 5
9. "The Inner Light" - Season 5
10. "Chain of Command pts 1 & 2" - Season 6
11. "Ship in a Bottle" - Season 6
12. "Frame of Mind" - Season 6
13. "Lower Decks" - Season 7
I would stand any of these episodes against the original series, or any other television series. They are really nice pieces, and I'm glad they got made.
From everything I've read about FIRST BLOOD the release is actually 1982, from the critics reviews to the copyright on the album and even imdb lists its release date as Oct 22 1982...
"another outstanding piece called "Ship in a Bottle".
I did see this episode, but for one reason only and her name was Stephanie Beacham! It was okay, but not enough to make me want to watch more.
Only other Trek spinoff TV episode I've seen is the Tribbles episode of DS9 and while it was nice to FINALLY see an acknowledgment that Klingons did indeed really look as we knew them in the TV show (to me, springing the lobster head Klingons on the audience out of the blue in the first movie was a colossal blunder of the first order, because it just conditioned the audience to not accept the film as "real" Trek from the start. Plus, John Kenneth Muir has rather tellingly noted that the revamped Klingons of Trek starting with the first movie more resemble the Borellian Nomen of "Battlestar Galactica" than anything else) to me, the episode was ruined by the failure to retain Jerry Fielding's music from the original episode. At the very least it cried out to be used during the fight sequence.
Getting back to the movies, the plot point about Kirk having been "mistaken" to accept promotion never rang true with me. Look what happened the first time he tried to muscle his way back into command in the first movie, he screwed up and Decker had to bail him out. In II, the theme was that he kept trying to act like the old hotshot captain and in the end had to learn a painful lesson that things were not what they once were. And I can literally remember a good Trek fan article written in the interlude between III and IV called "Why Kirk Will Remain An Admiral" (it was in one of those "Best Of Trek" paperbacks. That will give you an indication of how much I considered myself a classic Trekkie in those days that I bought those!) that I agreed with completely because when Spock says to Kirk in II that it was a mistake for him to accept promotion he then gives his "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" line, but it's then that Kirk says "or the one." The author of that piece made the point that Kirk was seemingly giving a mild rejoinder that staying where he was conceivably could have been a case of selfishness affecting the needs of the many, and if anything by film's end he seemed to have had that point driven home after his conversation with David.
I'm glad Eric saw "Ship in a Bottle", although I would have warned him at some point that it's a sequel to another episode which I didn't quite like as much called "Elementary Dear Data". The point of the earlier episode was that Data was running a Sherlock Holmes program on the holodeck but kept beating the computer's Moriarty. When Data instructed the computer to make a better Moriarty, the result was an AI Moriarty who evolved past the program to achieve his own consciousness. The result was that by the end of the episode Picard had promised to find a way to properly help the Moriarty program. The point of "Ship in a Bottle" is that Picard never was able to do so, and the Moriarty program gets reactivated with interesting results. The final conclusions of the episode were a bit more complex than you might expect from typical series television.
I repeat my call for Eric to take a look at the other episodes - he might find something more interesting there. And I repeat my statement that these episodes stand up to the original series episodes.
Regarding the lobster head Klingons, that was a choice made by Gene Roddenberry, who noted that this was what he would have done on the original series had he been given the budget to do it. I agree it's quite jarring, but the idea that the movie was not "real" Trek doesn't make any sense considering that Roddenberry, the creator of the series, produced the movie and insisted on that design. Apparently, there are episodes of the last Trek series "Enterprise" which specifically address this inconsistency, but this isn't anything that I really would want to spend hours and hours trying to figure out. I don't know that Roddenberry based anything on the Glen Larson 70's "Battlestar Galactica", but you never know.
John Kenneth Muir wrote a fan guide to "Space: 1999" called EXPLORING SPACE: 1999 which I have enjoyed in my free time, but which is very clearly a fan book. I'm happy for him that he enjoys sci-fi movies and TV shows but I haven't seen anything (on his website or anywhere else) to indicate that he has any more information or insight than any other fan of the genre. I understand he was included on the Sci-Fi Channel "Sciography" of "Battlestar Galactica" which I taped a few years ago. It's nice to know they would respect the sales of his fan book on "Galactica" enough to give him the soapbox, but for someone who has actually worked on these shows, his writings come across as the well-ordered thoughts of a fan with a VCR and a good attention to detail.
I was working on the stage next door to DS9 at Paramount when they filmed "Trials & Tribble-ations". And filmed the additional scenes. And then the other additional shots. And then more stuff. And it went on and on! (Trust me, it's hard to mistake the wardrobe and the beehive hairstyles on the female crew members!) I personally wasn't impressed with the episode when it finally aired, although it did include the obligatory cameo by David Gerrold. I agree with Eric that the bar fight feels really strange without the original score. (Which was included on the 30th Anniversary Score CD)
As for Star Trek TMP, I don't know that it shows that Decker had to bail Kirk's butt out. The one thing Decker accomplishes in that fashion is to fire the torpedoes when the phasers get cut off. (Now if that doesn't show there's something wrong with me, I don't know what will...) Other than that, Kirk's instincts get justified repeatedly in the film. He instinctively takes the correct steps to take the Enterprise to the heart of the mystery and find out what "Vejur" really is. Decker's solution to everyone's problem was actually a factor of the script not being finished when they started production. It's an easy solution which works (along the same lines as "Round up the usual suspects!" to solve the problem in another film...) but which doesn't reflect the level of thought you have the right to expect from a major motion picture.
The theme of Star Trek II, as stated repeatedly by Nicholas Meyer, Harve Bennett, and even William Shatner, is the notion of how we deal with aging and death. The Kirk we meet at the beginning of the film is in danger of turning into part of his collection of antiques in his home. (This is acknowledged not only by Bones in the birthday scene, but by Kirk himself when he ruefully acknowledges to Spock that he is going home rather than to any ship berth.) Both Bones and Spock tell Kirk that he needs to get his command back, as he was wrong to accept promotion and is hiding from himself behind responsibilities and regulations. Kirk says near the middle of the film that he feels "old" and "worn out". Spock's sacrifice at the climax of the film shakes him out of this, reminding him of a message Spock was trying to give him with the gift of "A Tale of Two Cities" - and when he is asked how he feels at the end of the film, he responds "I feel young." Significantly, the final line of the movie was intended to be the bit from Peter Pan that wound up in Star Trek VI - asked for a new course for the ship, Kirk responds "Second star to the right and straight on til morning."
So the issue isn't that Kirk learns a painful lesson that he needs to act his age. It's that he's over-reacting to getting older and he needs to experience and enjoy his life rather than sit on the sidelines. The point which is driven home to Kirk by his son is that the homilies he has been telling people actually mean something. He had told Saavik that how we deal with death is just as important as how we deal with life. When confronted, he tells David it was just words. David calls him on it and says Kirk should listen to them. The issue isn't that Kirk should sit behind a desk and let the young cadets run around the universe. In fact, the film makes clear that Kirk is wrong when he says this. The film repeatedly makes the point that Kirk is most effective when he doesn't do what is expected of him, when he doesn't act like an old man. The clear theme is that you are only as old as you think you are. Kirk affirms this in a speech down in the Genesis planet where he bemoans his life that "could have been and wasn't" and says he feels old, and then shows his growth with his final line in the film when he says "I feel young." That's not a sign of immaturity - it's a sign of knowledge.
It is important to note that BOTH Bones and Spock give Kirk the speech about being mistaken in his acceptance of promotion. That's a solid indication that it's a true statement. In the birthday scene at Kirk's home, Bones openly tells Kirk he's hiding from himself behind rules and regulations, and that he needs to get back his command before he turns into part of his own antique collection and really gets as old as he's afraid he is. The scene with Spock quoting the "needs of the many" idea should be viewed in the context of their conversation. Kirk tells Spock the situation. Spock notes that if they are to go on active duty, the senior officer (Kirk) must take command of the ship. Kirk tries to avoid this and tells Spock to retain command. Spock reminds Kirk not to worry about bruising a Vulcan's ego, since they don't have one. Spock then offers the advice that Kirk was mistaken to accept promotion since being a starship captain is his "first, best destiny. Anything else is a waste of material." Spock then offers as a logical maxim regarding the command situation that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Kirk counters "or the one", meaning Spock, who is giving up command for the greater good. Spock answers simply with an affirmation of their mutual friendship. At the conclusion of the film, this sentiment (both the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, and the mutual friendship) is reaffirmed in Kirk and Spock's final conversation at the antimatter chamber.
So the issue isn't that Kirk learns a painful lesson that he needs to act his age. It's that he's over-reacting to getting older and he needs to experience and enjoy his life rather than sit on the sidelines. The point which is driven home to Kirk by his son is that the homilies he has been telling people actually mean something. He had told Saavik that how we deal with death is just as important as how we deal with life. When confronted, he tells David it was just words. David calls him on it and says Kirk should listen to them. The issue isn't that Kirk should sit behind a desk and let the young cadets run around the universe. In fact, the film makes clear that Kirk is wrong when he says this. The film repeatedly makes the point that Kirk is most effective when he doesn't do what is expected of him, when he doesn't act like an old man. The clear theme is that you are only as old as you think you are. Kirk affirms this in a speech down in the Genesis planet where he bemoans his life that "could have been and wasn't" and says he feels old, and then shows his growth with his final line in the film when he says "I feel young." That's not a sign of immaturity - it's a sign of knowledge.
This was my interpretation of the film also. I believe Meyer states as much in his commentary.
Excellent posts David, I love talking "classic" Trek.
So the issue isn't that Kirk learns a painful lesson that he needs to act his age. It's that he's over-reacting to getting older and he needs to experience and enjoy his life rather than sit on the sidelines. The point which is driven home to Kirk by his son is that the homilies he has been telling people actually mean something. He had told Saavik that how we deal with death is just as important as how we deal with life. When confronted, he tells David it was just words. David calls him on it and says Kirk should listen to them. The issue isn't that Kirk should sit behind a desk and let the young cadets run around the universe. In fact, the film makes clear that Kirk is wrong when he says this. The film repeatedly makes the point that Kirk is most effective when he doesn't do what is expected of him, when he doesn't act like an old man. The clear theme is that you are only as old as you think you are. Kirk affirms this in a speech down in the Genesis planet where he bemoans his life that "could have been and wasn't" and says he feels old, and then shows his growth with his final line in the film when he says "I feel young." That's not a sign of immaturity - it's a sign of knowledge.
This was my interpretation of the film also. I believe Meyer states as much in his commentary.
Excellent posts David, I love talking "classic" Trek.
Me, too.
One thing this thread underscores for sure: Just how long it's really been since we had some grade A Trek going on.
DavidBanner wrote:One quick correction to a MUCH earlier post by Paul - He lists First Blood as coming out in the summer of 82. It actually came out before Christmas that year. Summer 82 was when we got Rocky III. But he was close.
Actually...um, I didn't refer to First Blood as a summer release. I said 1982 "was a pretty amazing year". I also mentioned Dark Crystal (which was a December release).
DavidBanner wrote:One quick correction to a MUCH earlier post by Paul - He lists First Blood as coming out in the summer of 82. It actually came out before Christmas that year. Summer 82 was when we got Rocky III. But he was close.
Actually...um, I didn't refer to First Blood as a summer release. I said 1982 "was a pretty amazing year". I also mentioned Dark Crystal (which was a December release).
I think I'm the one who mentioned the "summer of '82" during the conversation, but of course Paul was talking about the year itself.
Also, FIRST BLOOD was apparently an October release according to the IMDB (10/22/82 release date), though the movie really didn't take off until video...it was one of the first movies that really made its name on the VHS circuit.
AndyDursin wrote:SAVAGE ISLANDS? Do you mean NATE AND HAYES?
That's a terrible movie though...
Its not a classic, its a kind of corny and its American title is atrocious (which is why I call it Savange Islands)...but its still a lot better than Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End!
I don't recall the score (Jones, right?), I'll have to check it out again!
Its a very nice score, from Jones' early period, when his work had a more "lush" texture (which some say is due to orchestrator Peter Knight's influence). The main theme has a sea shanty quality, and is similar to "The Landstrider Journey" from Dark Crystal, and the love theme is one of his most beautiful creations.
The film also has a sequence involving a rope bridge, which is VERY similar to the one in Temple of Doom (released almost a year later).
I suspect -- maybe I'm a conspiracy theoroist -- but I suspect Paramount (at the urging of Lucas and Spielberg) picked-up the distribution rights to this film in order to kill it (with a bad title and spotty distribution), becaused they were pissed someone thought of "their" rope bridge idea first.
Sorry about that Paul - I just re-read your post next to Andy's.
Yes, FIRST BLOOD initially opened just before Halloween rather than Christmas. It should be noted that this was Stallone's first success in trying to find another character outside of Rocky Balboa that would really click with people. Between 1977 and 1981, he tried that a bunch of times - but Rambo was the first character that resonated.
I still remember the summer of 1982 as being the moment when the Rocky series lurched into full-on comedy mode with ROCKY III, however. Mr. T presented one of the funniest screen villains ever put in a boxing ring.
I agree with the other posters about the lack of any decent Trek material in roughly 15 years now. I think at this point it's probably run its course. As I said, I'm skeptical about what JJ Abrams would do to the material, especially if someone tries to "reimagine" the whole thing. I personally would have wished for a restart to the franchise as a new series supervised by David Gerrold, DC Fontana and Harlan Ellison. If someone proposed THAT, you'd have a series.
On the list of 1983 scores, I would agree with several of them. UNDER FIRE is a truly underrated film, and its score is one of Jerry Goldsmith's best. I would love to see that one reissued by Intrada, but I have a feeling the Pat Metheny contributions probably complicate this beyond feasibility. BRAINSTORM and KRULL contain some nice stuff, but a lot of the material there is recycled from other James Horner scores of that time. I would actually propose TESTAMENT as a fine 1983 film and one of Horner's best early scores.
As for TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE, I agree the score has some nice moments to it - particularly for the George Miller segment, but the Spielberg segment is really over the top even in the music department. And the whole thing unfortunately is in the shadow of the deaths at Indian Dunes. Having worked with several people who were on that shoot, and having researched all the available materials, I am amazed that the prosecutor bungled such an obvious case. I am further amazed that John Landis continues to work to this day, considering what happened.
Re: The Klingons. I would never say that Roddenberry consciously copied from Galactica although the manner in which Klingons and Klingon society is depicted (according to Muir in his Galactica book, which has a number of flaws but this is one point I agreed with) by the time of the spinoff series even more resembles the Borellian Nomen culture and its obsessive devotion to "the Code" as we saw in two episodes of Galactica than anything in Klingon behavior the series typified. I would note that it strikes many a Galactica fan who has had to live with the avalanche of abuse about being a "rip off" as amusing to see how the same arguments could equally be applied to note where some more popular properties could have been said to do the same with Galactica.
I will not challenge your assertions re: Kirk and rank any longer (though I think the "Why Kirk Will Remain An Admiral" piece from that forgotten Trek magazine should be relocated if it could be found) since that would just be a circular endeavor. Were I to grant your interpretation of the events though, it would from my standpoint make the experience of II's greatness as a film to me all the less satisfying.
Maybe in that sense, I'm just too impressed by the meaning of an episode like Twilight Zone's "Changing Of The Guard" which to me was a thoughtful piece on being able to put one's life in perspective when the time comes to move on from what you feel your best life's work has been.
DavidBanner wrote:Sorry about that Paul - I just re-read your post next to Andy's.
Hey, no problem!
On the list of 1983 scores, I would agree with several of them. UNDER FIRE is a truly underrated film, and its score is one of Jerry Goldsmith's best. I would love to see that one reissued by Intrada, but I have a feeling the Pat Metheny contributions probably complicate this beyond feasibility.
I know it was reissued by Warners in Japan and later Germany. But I don't know if Metheny's presence would affect a domestic / expanded reissue. Would be great tho!
BRAINSTORM and KRULL contain some nice stuff, but a lot of the material there is recycled from other James Horner scores of that time. I would actually propose TESTAMENT as a fine 1983 film and one of Horner's best early scores.
Krull is still my favorite, mainly because I love big fantasy scores with exciting action cues. Yeah there's a little Mahler and Prokofiev (and Star Trek II!) in there but for me its still one of the best in that genre.
As for TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE, I agree the score has some nice moments to it - particularly for the George Miller segment, but the Spielberg segment is really over the top even in the music department.
I always liked the Spielberg score. Goldsmith had never been so unabashedly lyrical, and it was nice to hear him express himself in a more Williams / Delerue kind of mode. The only score segment I don't care for is the Landis one. Its an interesting experiement and throwback to the small-ensemble work his did on the original series, but I wish he'd excluded more of that on the LP and made room for more music from the Spielberg segment.
Having worked with several people who were on that shoot, and having researched all the available materials, I am amazed that the prosecutor bungled such an obvious case.
Wow...I don't suppose you could furnish us with details could you? I mean, not to sound like a ghoul, but the reports around that incident were so convoluted.
