Jump to content

David Arnold to score Amazon's Good Omens 6-part TV Series (based on Neil Gaiman/Terry Pratchett book)


crocodile

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Quintus said:

Why did Arnold turn his back on the sound of a symphonic score?

 

To be fair, there are bits and pieces of that old Arnold sound here. Particularly the track "Atlantis" brought a smile to my face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

 

Basically you only like one Arnold score

 

Concentrate less on individual scores and more on his writing style. When he wants to, Arnold can make a really bloody convincing symphonic score. These days, few can do that in this industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It's a bit of everything really. From small and quirky to hip and a bit Bondish to Emmerich style orchestral and choir. Probably a more interestring listen on album that his Sherlock stuff. I'll give the OST a spin after i finish the show. 

 

It's TV music rather than film music though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

David Arnold snags TWO Emmy Nominations for Good Omens!

 

Original Main Title Theme Music, as well as Outstanding Music Composition for a Limited Series, Movie or a Special (Original Dramatic Score) for episode 1!

 

https://www.soundtrack.net/news/article/?id=2811

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 years later...
5 minutes ago, Signals said:

X-Files?

 

From a certain point of view:

Quote

From the start, Gilbert says, they wanted to parody the TV shows Twin Peaks, The X-Files, and True Detective.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listened to it today. Like with the season 1 OST, not terribly exciting. A bit of Elfmanistic waltzing, a bit of tongue-in-cheek, religioso epicness, lots of sleuthing music. Sound is weird -- orchestra sounds sampled and pinched. Don't know what that is about. But then I haven't seen the series itself, so I don't know how it works in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Muad'Dib said:

Watch the show, it's great! I liked the first season but the second one did everything better IMO.

 

I've been re-watching Season 1 and just re-read the book. The first was a grand tapestry of a dozen characters that weaved plot lines back and forth around each other. It was a surprisingly nice and accurate adaptation of the book. Season 2 became the "Aziraphale and Crowley show" because 1) they discovered in the first series how awesome Sheen & Tennant are (or Tennant & Sheen) and 2) I'll lay some of that at the missing Terry Pratchett -- or at least the fact that this is not the sequel that Gaiman and Pratchett came up with, it's the prelude to that sequel that G & P concocted that will be series 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with the first season is that I found myself having trouble engaging with most of the stuff that didn't involve Aziraphale and Crowley. Season 2 has them as 90% of the focus, which I adored. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Muad'Dib said:

My problem with the first season is that I found myself having trouble engaging with most of the stuff that didn't involve Aziraphale and Crowley. Season 2 has them as 90% of the focus, which I adored. 

 

That's more than fair. Like I said: The casting is genius. Re-reading the book I remembered that I always liked both of them. But you put those two actors into the roles? KACHOW!

 

I was a little surprised to discover that "Do I LOOK like I own a BOOOOOK SHOPPE?" was actually in the book. But Tennant took it and made it hilarious.

 

There's also a question of point of view. Season 2 paints The World (or Creation) as a broken down mess. While 1 and the book (and I'll just say 1 from now on) show it as less broken down than as beyond understanding. "Ineffable" if you will. The great moment in the book (and I believe in the show but I haven't gotten that far on watch 2) is when Aziraphale essentially says "Look, you people don't know that this isn't The Plan any more or less than we do!"

 

"God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players [i.e. everybody], to being involved in an obscure and complex variant of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time."

 

I also realized in season 2 that I really missed Frances McDormand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muad'Dib said:

My problem with the first season is that I found myself having trouble engaging with most of the stuff that didn't involve Aziraphale and Crowley. Season 2 has them as 90% of the focus, which I adored. 

 

yeah, and it had a vague air of "novel put to screen too literally" over it, with a weird pacing. i figured the reason may have been more or less that, bc i haven't read it. or perhaps some areas were better translated to the show. (the aforementioned casting etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

That's more than fair. Like I said: The casting is genius. Re-reading the book I remembered that I always liked both of them. But you put those two actors into the roles? KACHOW!

 

When the casting was announced I realised that Crowley already looks like tenant in the original book inside cover thingy illustration.

 

I'm a big Pratchett fan, and I like Gaiman, but I've always only "liked" (not loved) Good Omens. It feels a bit too over the place to me, and (not unlike the original The Omen film) seems to suggest a greatness through its concept and setup that's not there for me in the final product. As such, I thought S1 was a fitting adaptation (that I didn't love it maybe just comes with the territory).

 

I haven't seen S2 yet, so how I'll like it remains to be seen, but judging from what I've read about it by Gaiman, Rhianna Pratchett, and Rob Wilkins (and their respective retweets), I'm confident that it's artistically motivated (i.e. more than just a cash grab) (perhaps/probably/certainly not exclusively, but then what production that needs a budget is), and those involved & responsible seem to be satisfied that Pratchett's spirit remains alive in it (certainly something that Rhianna P & Rob Wilkins are very aware and increasingly protective of, given some other recent projects).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

He probably only wants to sleep. 

And eat tons of sweets, as seen on his TwitterX profile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

He's a burned-out dad of three kids. He probably only wants to sleep. 

I think every major Hollywood composer has had to work even having children at home. JW's children were kids in the 70s and he was a widower but that didn't stop him from writing all those disaster movies, Jaws, Black Sunday, The Eiger Sanction, Star Wars, Close Encounters, Superman, etc. If that was good or not for his kids' well being is an entirely different conversation... :mellow:

 

JNH had his first kid during the recording sessions of Wyatt Earp. Randy Newman had to step in for him while he was at the hospital and, when he returned to work, the orchestra played a lullaby for him (a nice story that is on the Wyatt Earp LLL liner notes).

 

So I don't think that's the only reason... Unless Arnold is one of those people who found more satisfaction in being close to his family then on working on big budget movies, and if that's the reason I have some real respect for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.