 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Style-wise, Alien is not that different from Blade Runner. Yes, Blade Runner is gritty too. Only, I don't think Vangelis would've been interested in making an unequivocal horror score. It sure would've been interesting since Vangelis probably would've enhanced other aspects of the film. Some people feel Alien and Blade Runner take place in the same universe (even Scott doesn't deny that). The feeling would've been even stronger if Vangelis was the composer of both scores.
Anyway, Alien is great as it stands.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I can't help thinking what Tangerine Dream (or even Jean-Michel Jarre) would have done if they had scored it. Would have been magic! ;-)
The Corman movie Forbidden World with music by Susan Justin or Galaxy of Terror...there you have your Alien with TD music...AND IT SUCKS 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 11, 2013 - 11:49 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
Alien is a masterpiece of film making, and always will be.
Certainly a very well-crafted movie in terms of production design, editing and score, but I think the idea that ALIEN -- and BLADE RUNNER -- are all-time great science fiction films is a myth -- if you are of the school of thought that science fiction should be thoughtful. Without question both are very popular films, but popularity alone doesn't signify profundity and scratch beneath the surface and you'll find both films are remarkably shallow in the ideas department. What's truly remarkable about them is how much so many read into them -- and I would include STAR WARS in that regard. That they are so well-loved is enough for most to grant them the status of greatness, but for me, greatness must be earned by more than mere popularity. I saw both ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER in their original releases, found both entertaining, but beyond that, for me, both films have become nothing more than old and imitated to death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 11, 2013 - 12:12 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Alien is a masterpiece of film making, and always will be.
Certainly a very well-crafted movie in terms of production design, editing and score, but I think the idea that ALIEN -- and BLADE RUNNER -- are all-time great science fiction films is a myth -- if you are of the school of thought that science fiction should be thoughtful. Without question both are very popular films, but popularity alone doesn't signify profundity and scratch beneath the surface and you'll find both films are remarkably shallow in the ideas department. What's truly remarkable about them is how much so many read into them -- and I would include STAR WARS in that regard. That they are so well-loved is enough for most to grant them the status of greatness, but for me, greatness must be earned by more than mere popularity. I saw both ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER in their original releases, found both entertaining, but beyond that, for me, both films have become nothing more than old and imitated to death.
Couldn't disagree more. Both of those films are the very best of what science fiction has to offer and their classic status couldn't be more deserved -- not only engrossing stories, but also loaded with audiovisual symbolism and lofty ideas. It's top shelf art.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 11, 2013 - 5:10 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
Personally, I also think it (and ALIEN) are among the greatest films ever made, but that's a more subjective sentiment. I don't mind people disliking these two films for whatever reason, but it bugs me when they try to make them less than what they are; to minimize their impact etc.
How has Blade Runner influenced the genre? In what way? The film itself emulates the gloomier sci fi fare of the 60's and 70's. The visual effects are CEOT3K 2.0. Put lots of lights on the models and film them in a smoke room. It has virtually no characterization, or story to tell.
Alien, Star Trek, Star Wars, Matrix, Terminator, heck even Death Race 2000 (1975) have often been seen as a source of inspiration. It's great you enjoy the film, and think it's one of the finest ever made in film history. But I have to disagree on the rest. It's the fans, not it's distracters that are doing a little bit of revisionism here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 12, 2013 - 7:42 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
There's supernatural powers in Star Wars, definitely not sci-fi. Science Fantasy.
The other two are definitely sci-fi and are also as you describe them.
Okay, I'll bite. 
How are the other two "definitely sci-fi"?
I explained why I think they are not, but you said nothing of why you think they are.
I think ALL of the films we're talking about here fall in the general 'sci fi' category, even though you can split hairs and call STAR WARS a 'space opera'/fantasy, BLADE RUNNER a film noir, ALIEN a horror etc. The point is that sci fi as a general genre can encompass all of these and many other subgenres. The days we defined 'sci fi' as only fiction based on science have long past come and gone.
Surely in it's strictest form sci-fi is fiction based on science.
Bladerunner with it's genetically created humans ( Replicants ) and flying cars, all possible but still a fiction right now. Alien, we don't have spaceships mining on other planets...yet. The Alien itself is obviously based on insectoid life right down to using a living host to born it's young so even that creature has a basis for possibility.
Absolutely. All these films qualify as SCIENCE fiction in that strict term too, but they're obviously also MORE than that. That's the great thing about sci fi -- it is able to encompass so many different styles and genres wtihin itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 12, 2013 - 11:16 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Octoberman
(Member)
|
Okay, so what I'm getting from you guys is that these movies are sci-fi simply because of the gadgets and technology in them. Yes, there are spaceships and laserguns and human-looking machines. No argument there. But I don't see how that fact defines the fundamental categories to which these movies belong.
Let me give you an example of what I mean and, just for the sake of consistency, I'll stick with "Star Wars". The movie is first about the capture of a princess and the rescuers have to go to some pretty exotic places to get her back. To do this they need spaceships, much in the same way that we would need cars or boats or planes. Now, if the movie was about us does that make it "sci-fi"? Does the classification of the movie depend upon the incidental technology in it?
If you take a copy of "Casablanca" to some remote tribe in New Guinea who theoretically have never seen a spaceship or a car or a gun before, are they going to see that movie as "sci-fi", merely because those things were previously unknown to them? Or are they going to see "Casablanca" as a story of rescue, sacrifice, nobilty and love?
(Very likely they will wonder how the movie people got in that little box, but that's beside the point! LOL)
So come on, guys. Hit me. What makes "Star Wars" sci-fi?
(And I'm also bearing in mind that this off-topic threadjack is through the good graces of First Breath. It's his thread and if he wishes, we can move it.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 12, 2013 - 11:33 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Okay, so what I'm getting from you guys is that these movies are sci-fi simply because of the gadgets and technology in them. Yes, there are spaceships and laserguns and human-looking machines. No argument there. But I don't see how that fact defines the fundamental categories to which these movies belong.
Let me give you an example of what I mean and, just for the sake of consistency, I'll stick with "Star Wars". The movie is first about the capture of a princess and the rescuers have to go to some pretty exotic places to get her back. To do this they need spaceships, much in the same way that we would need cars or boats or planes. Now, if the movie was about us does that make it "sci-fi"? Does the classification of the movie depend upon the incidental technology in it?
If you take a copy of "Casablanca" to some remote tribe in New Guinea who theoretically have never seen a spaceship or a car or a gun before, are they going to see that movie as "sci-fi", merely because those things were previously unknown to them? Or are they going to see "Casablanca" as a story of rescue, sacrifice, nobilty and love?
(Very likely they will wonder how the movie people got in that little box, but that's beside the point! LOL)
So come on, guys. Hit me. What makes "Star Wars" sci-fi?
(And I'm also bearing in mind that this off-topic threadjack is through the good graces of First Breath. It's his thread and if he wishes, we can move it.)
It is really just an extension of now, with a vision of what might be. Star Trek was far out there in 1968, but a good many of the gadgets that had came to be, or are coming to be. Cell Phones, tablets, medical scanners. Star Wars is odd because it was framed as a long long time ago, as in past history, which is odd. Nonetheless it is a conceptual extension of space craft that were around in 1977, made much larger, faster, nicer etc. Aside from the Jedi spiritual stuff though Star Wars in many ways is more grounded than Star Trek in my view. Star Trek was breaking out our ideas of physical reality with transporter beams, and they were always getting into 'other levels' of reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do agree Blade Runner and Aliens are Sci Fi. To some extent Star Wars, even if it is space fantasy. Though so is Star Trek nowadays.