Nick Parker

EDIT

This discussion really hones in on how important it can be for composers to engage with actual players, and how unfortunate it is that so many composers now have to rely on virtual instruments. There's something truly remarkable to be said for how a player-- a specialist in their instrument--can take the broad strokes given to them by a composer, much like an actor and a director/screenwriter, and imbue the part with dimensions that a composer just can't conceive of.

i just want to see williams go goddamn ballistic on social media when sugarland express is announced

Rule 49 of the Internet: never click on a video with a Photoshopped Rian Johnson thumbnail.

Without a grasp of masochism, more like.

Haha, I didn't realize this wasn't considered common. But you've already heard swung rags!

You're a robot! You're a goddamn robot!

Nothing's wrong with them, just never been really compelled by what they've got, musically. What I have been compelled by lately though is Thundercat's "Them Changes"! I love how the chord progression and off-kilter tone offsets a story about heartbreak. And true to my forum title...boy do I love that bass.

On the tangentail subject of Pink Floyd, I've been fixated on these ten seconds for the last few days: The nonstop major chord phrases cascading into that B minor resolution, the bass synth punctuating them until it finally holds at that chord, the lyrics (I also love how the music opens up with the words "clear blue sky")......... I'm not a Pink Floyd fan, but this might be one of my favorite little musical moments ever.

Oh for sure. It doesn't compare to AVP:R, though, because no viewer's mind could be protected enough from that movie's diseased, penetrating violations.

That's more apt, because that's all I ever was...and that's all I'll ever be. .... Same, and even 3 is a stretch.

Oh snap! How?

I meant to reply to this with my earlier post, but it got erased in my draft. That's like just calling John Williams the conductor of the Boston Pops, but yes, the one and the same. That's one thing I kinda love about another set of space prequels made in the 21st century. As a strict prequel to the original trilogy, they suck pretty hard, and if you think about the details too hard they could actually lessen your appreciation of certain preexisting events and characters (what, so Yoda nearly kicked the Emperor's ass, lost to a very particular circumstance, said "This maclunkey, fuck" and just hid away on a desolate swamp for twenty years?) But Lucas also wanted to use them as an opportunity to explore something far more ambitious than laser ships and connecting the dots: he used the foundation he had set decades ago to tell the story of how a democracy descends into fascism. Does it gel with the previous movies? Hell no. But I enjoy them in a way similar to how I enjoy Rosencratz and Guildenstern as an existential riff on Hamlet. That said, in Scott's defense, the original Alien was packed with symbolism of its own (some of which makes the movie way more disturbing to watch as an adult ), and I've always rejected the obnoxious reduction of it as a "slasher in space". Hell, even Aliens pulls off a Vietnam allegory. So I _do_ think that the series is more explicitly ripe for the philosophical musings that Prometheus sets out...the major difference is that with Alien, it works on multiple layers, and can be enjoyed on each one. Prometheus?...not so much.

I guess my ultimate question in response to your question is "Does there need to be a point?" One of the greatest appeals of science/speculative fiction has always been how it takes the intangible and often presents it in a literal, present reality. I don't think it's necessary to come up with a "conclusion", as long as the idea(s) are explored in an interesting or compelling way. Speaking as neutrally as possible given the subject matter of Prometheus, the likelihood of us as humans meeting and directly interacting with our hypothetical creator is next to none, but here in this film we have the opportunity to daydream and imagine how might that encounter play out. In Prometheus' case, things don't go so hot for us--much different than the typical compassionate creator found in Shaw's Christianity, and of course, in keeping with the film's title, David ultimately usurps the mantle of creator for himself. For myself, just watching all that play out, again, in a literal way is fun, and if it's a subject that compels you, I think there are a number of interesting questions you could take away from the film: if we were created from an entity, does that creator regard as its children? Is it obligated to care for us? We have constructed countless creation myths, where we have communicated with our creators...is that something we'd actually want? Did our creator have a creator of its own? Furthermore, does that imply that we, too, could act as creators further down the chain? What's to stop that chain? (As seen through the creation of David, who in turn creates what becomes the xenomorph.) What does all that say about our place in the universe? These are all just questions off the top of my head, based on my one viewing of the film nine years ago at the cinema. Again, I'm not giving the movie a free pass for its problems, and I don't think all of its questions _were_ explored in an interesting way. This is _not_ one of my favorite movies by any means, and really, I wouldn't think about it if I didn't see it discussed here on JWFan. But I also think it's only fair to give the film credit for genuinely posing these questions at all in such a bold way--tragically rare in modern Hollywood, even by 2012 standards--and for inviting people to ponder and discuss them. If you don't think it's a compelling line of thought, that's cool, but I don't think it's right to then say that there's nothing really there.