10 replies to this topic

[Blue Eyes]

Future James Bond films will be ineligible for nomination in the category of Best Original Film Score at the Academy Awards.

The ineligibility is a result of nomination rule changes by the music branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, who head the Academy Awards. The new rule disallows film sequels, and series, that use score elements from previous films.

The new rule won't just affect future Bond films, other film series such Star Wars, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings will be ineligible for nomination.

[Alexborn007]

Two words...


Utterly Ridiculous. Just continues the sham Hollywood calls the Academy.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Well, the category is "best original score," so by definition any score containing motifs, cues, or themes from previous movies in a franchise can't be called original.

Apparently Howard Shore's score for TLOR:TTT was rejected for this year's nominations for that reason, but then reinstated as there was about 90% originality in his two and a half hour score, and therefore was allowed.

So, now that this precedent has been set, I suppose that from now on future Bond scores may still be elligible so long as there is only about 10% of previously used music.

Incidentally, as a soundtrack collector I totally agree with this restriction.

There is a writing catergory for "best original screenplay," but there is also another award for "best adaption from another medium," so in future there could be a simillar award for scores, but I'd doubt it as this would only apply to sequels and franchises, and other than the Godfather trilogy, the Academy seems to distance themselves from such movies. The Two Towers may disprove all that, though.

[Dr. Yes]

Well, I can't say I'm a fan of this rule. But if it must be done, then I agree that they should create a new category for best musical score adapted from an original source. This could actually be a fairly broad category, encompassing not only franchises and sequels, but also movie musicals, and perhaps the use of classical and popular music in movies. This could allow films such as "Chicago," which use music from an original stage play, "Amadeus," which used original Mozart music, or something like Tarantino's films which use a lot of popular music to be nominated for their effective use of that music.

[MovieManOO7]

Originally posted by Dr. Yes
Well, I can't say I'm a fan of this rule.  But if it must be done, then I agree that they should create a new category for best musical score adapted from an original source.  This could actually be a fairly broad category, encompassing not only franchises and sequels, but also movie musicals, and perhaps the use of classical and popular music in movies.  This could allow films such as "Chicago," which use music from an original stage play, "Amadeus," which used original Mozart music, or something like Tarantino's films which use a lot of popular music to be nominated for their effective use of that music.

I totally agree.

[rafterman]

yeah, two score categories would do it, best original score and then one that allows series, adaptations and soundtracks that are just collections of songs, like a Rusmore soundtrack, something with lots of songs that have been used before....it isn't a bad rule, but it hurts scores that are still very good, even a new Star Wars score has lots of originality, we're not talking 100% the same as an older film, to completely ignore these types of scores sucks...

[zencat]

This new rule is just weird. Following this same logic, should sequels now be disqualified from the best original screenplay category? With that silly best Animated movie category (they should have just called it the annual DreamWorks vs. Disney pissing contest award) and now this, the Oscars seem to be going they way of the Golden Globes. Just a TV show and a joke.

[rafterman]

the Oscars are just weird period.

[mkkbb]

This is completely riduculous as reworking previous scores into new scores must be quite a challenge for the composer, and to still make it original should be worth an award anyway.

Take, for instance DAD score. While I never thought it would win an Oscar, it is totally different from most Bond scores, but is a tremendous score. Why shouldn't this be nominated as recognition to the composer.

Stupid rule.

[Turn]

By saying this, they are sort of twisting the use of the term original. What score hasn't used something that has gone before?

As somebody suggested, another category for best use of a soundtrack would be a great idea since so fewer films are using original scores these days.

[JackChase007]

I think it's a bit ridiculous.

Personally, I hate the idea of awards anyway. These people get millions and millions of dollars to act in films, so let's award them for their greediness. Sometimes I really hate the film industry - why the hell do I want to be part of it, I wonder???

Although, I certainly give credit to film composers and writers, and on OCCASION, directors. There are some directors who simply out a movie, and gain instant recognition. On the other hand, you have directos such as the Amazing Raimi-Man (aka Sam Raimi), who began by making low-budget cult films (the ever-classic EVIL DEAD series) and has now given us the greatest comic book film yet (I'm curious to see what he does with "The Amazing Spider-Man" (Spidey 2). Another director that I do give a lot of credit to is Stephen Sommers (The Mummy and The Mummy Returns), who makes FUN movies for people to enjoy. He's not worred about that damn golden statue. He even refuses to do a third Mummy film, which Universal has been demanding so that they can rake in more $$$$$$$$$$$.

Actors are the most spoiled lot in the world. There was once a time when acting was FROWNED UPON. Actors were seen as the scum of the earth, and acting was such a LOW profession.

My point, ladies and jellyspoons? Where is the point in awards ceremonies for these rich, powerful people???