Ed Ineligible!??!

guitar_davey wrote:

I don't think Into the Wild was excluded literally because of "predominant use of songs." I think Rolling Stone was making a joke to illustrate how flawed the nomination process is.

That's my interpretation.

DP

Not really directed just at you. It's the same reason Enchanted wasn't nominated for score. That same guy kept winning for his song-laden Disney scores ("The Little Mermaid," "Aladdin," "Beauty and the Beast") so they added a clause to exclude movie scores that were mostly songs to favour composers who focus on the business of dramatic scoring, not use of songs. It's a bit unfair, I wouldn't say that it's the same thing at all in this case.

At least it seems to me the point they're making is that the score's (the whole score including the stuff by Michael Brook and Kaki King) best part is the songs and that excludes it from the score award.

As for why Guaranteed did get a nomination for song, it beats me!

Noonie wrote:

Damn, I totally read this thread's title as "Ed Intelligible!??!"

Don't be ridiculous!

beachdweller wrote:

that's for the score, and that makes sense to me, but what about the individual song category, no excuse there.

indeed.
a score is not simply a collection of songs, it's much different from simply a soundtrack. many films have soundtracks, but they don't all have scores.....and i am not educated enough in the language of music to explain the differece, but there IS a difference. however, completely agree regarding individual song category.