Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Aug 10, 2013 - 7:30 AM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

Since Vangelis nurtured a similar 'organic' ideology as Goldsmith's ALIEN in BLADE RUNNER, it would have been interesting to hear his take. However, I'm not sure he would have been 'gritty' enough for this particular film. Tangerine Dream definitely could have delivered that (SORCERER is a great example of grittiness), but it's just speculation at this point. I prefer to focus on the actual scores that exist, and interpret/evaluate them accordingly.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 10, 2013 - 8:38 AM   
 By:   Alex Cremers   (Member)

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

 
 Posted:   Aug 10, 2013 - 10:34 AM   
 By:   gone   (Member)

Alien is a masterpiece of film making, and always will be.

 
 Posted:   Aug 11, 2013 - 9:20 AM   
 By:   David Kessler   (Member)



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 wink

 
 Posted:   Aug 11, 2013 - 10:49 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 - 11:12 AM   
 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 - 11:50 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

Bladerunner is a quirky little film with a muddled script and some silly acting and set ups. It's visual style is all over the map and more of a "kitchen sink" approach. Visually it did not set a new standard like the Star Trek and Star Wars universes. Effects techniques were not innovative as they just used the same processes used in CEOT3K. There's no question the film has gained a "cult" following" , but that doesn't make it a better film, or a film that is more deserving in retrospect.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 11, 2013 - 3:19 PM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

Bladerunner is a quirky little film with a muddled script and some silly acting and set ups. It's visual style is all over the map and more of a "kitchen sink" approach. Visually it did not set a new standard like the Star Trek and Star Wars universes. Effects techniques were not innovative as they just used the same processes used in CEOT3K. There's no question the film has gained a "cult" following" , but that doesn't make it a better film, or a film that is more deserving in retrospect.

Again, I have to strongly disagree. Far more than even STAR WARS (and definitely STAR TREK) BLADE RUNNER set a new standard that was to be hugely influential not only in sci fi, but other films as well. It's the epitome of science fiction and far more than a cult film. That statement comes off as rather odd to me.

Personally, I also think it (and ALIEN) is 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.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 11, 2013 - 4:05 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

For what it's worth, I don't think "Alien", "Blade Runner" or, for that matter, "Star Wars" are sci-fi movies at all.

The first is a horror movie set in a big basement in outer space.
The second is a noir-detective story set in the future.
The third is a action/adventure yarn set in many different places, but it's not sci-fi just because it has guns that go zap rather than blam.

Just my 2 pence.

(EDIT: I don't want the above to give the impression that I don't think those three movies aren't amazing. I think they are.)

 
 Posted:   Aug 11, 2013 - 4:10 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 11, 2013 - 5:43 PM   
 By:   Timmer   (Member)

For what it's worth, I don't think "Alien", "Blade Runner" or, for that matter, "Star Wars" are sci-fi movies at all.

The first is a horror movie set in a big basement in outer space.
The second is a noir-detective story set in the future.
The third is a action/adventure yarn set in many different places, but it's not sci-fi just because it has guns that go zap rather than blam.

Just my 2 pence.

(EDIT: I don't want the above to give the impression that I don't think those three movies aren't amazing. I think they are.)


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.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 11, 2013 - 5:50 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (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. big grin

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.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2013 - 1:16 AM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

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.

BLADE RUNNER was itself inspired by stuff like German expressionism and film noir, of course, but the amalgam of retrofitted production design would become THE benchmark for later trends like 'cyberpunk' or 'steampunk'. It was also one of the few science fiction films in history where the story is less important than potent symbolism in audiovisuals and a more experienced-oriented way of viewing films. To claim that BLADE RUNNER was not influential comes off as a rather ludicrous statement to me (no offense) -- regardless of whether you like the film or not.

We just have to agree to disagree on the rest in regards to our personal evaluation of the movie.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2013 - 1:31 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. big grin

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.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2013 - 6:35 AM   
 By:   Timmer   (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. big grin

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.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2013 - 6:42 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. big grin

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 - 7:04 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

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.

BLADE RUNNER was itself inspired by stuff like German expressionism and film noir, of course, but the amalgam of retrofitted production design would become THE benchmark for later trends like 'cyberpunk' or 'steampunk'. It was also one of the few science fiction films in history where the story is less important than potent symbolism in audiovisuals and a more experienced-oriented way of viewing films. To claim that BLADE RUNNER was not influential comes off as a rather ludicrous statement to me (no offense) -- regardless of whether you like the film or not.

We just have to agree to disagree on the rest in regards to our personal evaluation of the movie.


I appreciate the reply and hearing your perspective, and yes we don't need to beat a dead horse. We both made our points. smile 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.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2013 - 9:48 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

I watched the BluRay Outland with the commentary track with Peter Hyams, he called the picture 'science feasible' instead of science fiction, because most of the picture was not that far fetched. Aside from a big structure for a fully functional work colony he is pretty correct, most of the technology is possible now in the film, even the facility is possible now, at great cost of course. I thought that was interesting.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 12, 2013 - 10:16 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 - 10:33 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.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.