Examples of movies saved by the score?

[A24 4,338]

51 minutes ago, JTW said:

Maybe the target audience didn’t go see it in theaters. But later they watched it on TV and VHS. 

 

Why would the target audience wait for a pan & scan on TV or VHS?

 

I was part of the target audience and I was there on day one.

 

The movie just didn't have mass appeal. 

[Richard Penna 3,694]

5 hours ago, rough cut said:

Bladerunner comes to mind… “Saved” might be a stretch but I doubt it would be as iconic without Vangelis’ score.

 

All the score did when I saw it years ago was remind me it was made in the 80s. I don't think the film itself is as iconic and untouchable as your average film critic thinks it is (I think it was 'ok') but boy does the score date it now.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,542]

I saw BLADE RUNNER at the cinema five times, in 1982. I was definitely its target audience 

BLADE RUNNER (and, by extension, THE THING) failed for one reason: E.T. The Summer belonged to the little squashy guy, so much so that audiences were put off (or even revolted) by - thematically- dark and, ultimately, depressing, films.

Where BLADE RUNNER opened before E.T. (UK; Europe) it fared a lot better.

In 1982, people didn't want see an existential essay on what it means to be human (or, for that matter, shape-shifting aliens). They wanted cute and comforting, and they got it.

As for the score; it goes a long way to establishing BLADE RUNNER as a milestone in both science fiction films, and modern films, in general.

 

[Richard Penna 3,694]

The only part of the BR score I actually remember is those synth chords over the Tyrell buildings at the start. I can't for the life of me remember anything else in the rest of the film. I has been a while since I saw it, but if you're a score enthusiast we tend to remember good, prominent music.

 

I was doing a little bit of SW listening last night, and particularly making my 30th attempt to find material in AotC that appeals to me, and it reminded me of how a score can have really good bits where a scene is made much more exciting/beautiful through music, but also bits where it's just 'there' under some dialog. The former can turn an effective scene into an iconic moment but the latter parts I'd argue make very little difference at all.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,542]

17 minutes ago, Richard Penna said:

I  was doing a little bit of SW listening last night, and particularly making my 30th attempt to find material in AotC that appeals to me... 

 

"Arrival On Coruscant" (or whatever it's called; it's heard after the opening credits) is my favourite cue.

[Richard Penna 3,694]

I did like the melody in Meadow Picnic and Anakin and Padme. I wish the 'Across the Stars' thing had been more along those lines than the Hook lifted theme.

[JTN 2,030]

4 hours ago, A24 said:

 

Why would the target audience wait for a pan & scan on TV or VHS?

 

I was part of the target audience and I was there on day one.

 

The movie just didn't have mass appeal. 

Maybe because they didn’t

know what to expect, maybe the promotion was not good enough to attract the target audience. 
 

2001: ASO bombed as well. 
 

Sometimes people just aren’t ready for a film way ahead of its time. It takes some time for the audience to realize what they have in their hands.

 

Fortunately they did later when they watched it on home video.

[A24 4,338]

The best possible reason I've heard is that the movie was too bleak and depressive for the general public in 1982. They wanted E.T. to phone home. Another dark movie that people avoided in 1982 was The Thing. BTW, Blade Runner 2049  also failed at the box office.  

[Tallguy 3,398]

2 hours ago, A24 said:

Why would the target audience wait for a pan & scan on TV or VHS?

 

Because nobody knew what pan and scan was. In the mid 90's I was working in a music / video store and I made it my crusade to explain to people why they should buy the letterboxed Jurassic Park. "But I don't like the black bars cuttin' off the picture!" I almost never won that argument.

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, JTW said:

2001: ASO bombed as well. 

 

Its not hard to see why, he said under his breath.

[A24 4,338]

It lost some money in the year of its release but made profit in 1971. 

 

"Taking its re-releases into account, it is the highest-grossing film of 1968 in the United States and Canada." - wikipedia

[Chen G. 3,949]

12 minutes ago, A24 said:

It lost some money in the year of its release but made profit in 1971. 

 

 

Given that it was a 1968 release, waiting until 1971 for it to turn a profit at all is... not exactly a badge of honour...

[Naïve Old Fart 9,542]

... but it wasn't uncommon, either.

Many films either lost, or didn't make much, on their first runs. Subsequent re-releases put them into the black.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Sure, but those films weren't huge success stories, and neither was 2001, in its day. And its not clear to me at all that Kubrick thought it was a success story: one could read into the fact that he never again pursued a special-effects-heavy film (and in fact declined a couple, like Lord of the Rings), never again pursued a travelogue-like film, etc...

[Mephariel 451]

None. I can't think a single bad film saved by the film score. 

[A24 4,338]

 

10 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Sure, but those films weren't huge success stories, and neither was 2001, in its day. And its not clear to me at all that Kubrick thought it was a success story: one could read into the fact that he never again pursued a special-effects-heavy film (and in fact declined a couple, like Lord of the Rings), never again pursued a travelogue-like film, etc...

 

Ultimately it made more money than any other movie of 1968. If that doesn't deserve a batch of honour then I don't know what does. 

[JTN 2,030]

1 hour ago, A24 said:

It lost some money in the year of its release but made profit in 1971. 

 

"Taking its re-releases into account, it is the highest-grossing film of 1968 in the United States and Canada." - wikipedia

The box office success is not the measure of a movie’s merits. I specifically made the point to indicate that some of the greatest films of all time were financially unsuccessful on their initial theatrical run.

[A24 4,338]

9 minutes ago, JTW said:

The box office success is not the measure of a movie’s merits. I specifically made the point to indicate that some of the greatest films of all time were financially unsuccessful on their initial theatrical runs. 

 

True. Box office 'flops' like The Wizard Of Oz, Citizen Kane, 2001: ASO and Blade Runner were later regarded as some of the best movies ever made. 

[Mr. Hooper 1,793]

2 hours ago, Tallguy said:

 

Because nobody knew what pan and scan was. In the mid 90's I was working in a music / video store and I made it my crusade to explain to people why they should buy the letterboxed Jurassic Park. "But I don't like the black bars cuttin' off the picture!" I almost never won that argument.

 Yeah, I remember the mid-90s, the introduction of "letterboxed" to the VHS market, and Universal's tagline: "See what you've been missing!" And did I have a time explaining it too...

 

It would come down to: "Your TV screen is square, right? A movie is projected on a rectangular screen in the theater, right? So what happens when we fit a rectangular image onto a square TV screen? Answer: black bars."

 

 

"Aspect ratios" was a conversation for another day...

[Tom 4,664]

Hook

Far and Away

War Horse

AI

The Rocketeer

ST: Insurrection 

 

Bonus TV mention: Newhart 

[Richard Penna 3,694]

1 hour ago, Mr. Hooper said:

 Yeah, I remember the mid-90s, the introduction of "letterboxed" to the VHS market, and Universal's tagline: "See what you've been missing!" And did I have a time explaining it too...

 

Apparently I very vocally supported full screen as a teen when we were starting to move away from VHS onto digital formats.

 

I do not recall taking such a position 

[Tallguy 3,398]

1 hour ago, Mr. Hooper said:

 Yeah, I remember the mid-90s, the introduction of "letterboxed" to the VHS market, and Universal's tagline: "See what you've been missing!" And did I have a time explaining it too...

 

It would come down to: "Your TV screen is square, right? A movie is projected on a rectangular screen in the theater, right? So what happens when we fit a rectangular image onto a square TV screen? Answer: black bars."

 

 

"Aspect ratios" was a conversation for another day...

 

I actually had a Star Wars trading card (the wide screen frame grabs they sold back then) and fashioned up a matte that I could slide back and forth demonstrating pan and scan.

 

Didn't make a difference. Thank heavens for DVDs and (eventually) wide screen TVs.

 

28 minutes ago, Tom said:

The Rocketeer

 

That's a bold statement.

[Tom 4,664]

17 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

That's a bold statement.

and beautiful.  

[Tallguy 3,398]

23 minutes ago, Tom said:

and beautiful.  

 

Oh, one of my favorite scores and films. But I think it was doing just fine before Jamie came and put all the icing on the cake.

[Chen G. 3,949]

4 hours ago, A24 said:

Ultimately it made more money than any other movie of 1968. If that doesn't deserve a batch of honour then I don't know what does. 

 

No. Funny girl made more money...

 

And, ultimately, we need to remember 2001: A Space Odyssey was one of those runaway, wildly overbudget and over-schedule films. Its very nice that it was the second biggest film of the year, but its a lot less nice when one keeps in mind how much it cost.

 

It, ultimately, was not a commercially succesfull movie, and even critically it was mixed and certainly didn't win the big brass.

[Mr. Hooper 1,793]

2 hours ago, Tallguy said:

I actually had a Star Wars trading card (the wide screen frame grabs they sold back then) and fashioned up a matte that I could slide back and forth demonstrating pan and scan.

You were a dedicated salesman! lol

 

5 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

and even critically it was mixed

"Critics". 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

For the moment, I'm just stating the facts of the 1968 release. I'm not making a statement on the artistic merit of the movie (which I don't care for).

[Mr. Hooper 1,793]

"Mixed reviews" was pretty well par for the course for Kubrick films at the time of release. But some of those early critics would later recant and change their minds, I guess in view of Kubrick being anointed a Film God, especially after his death.

[Tallguy 3,398]

1 hour ago, Mr. Hooper said:

I guess in view of Kubrick being anointed a Film God, especially after his death.

 

Which was in 1987?

[Mr. Hooper 1,793]

1999, shortly after turning in his final cut of Eyes Wide Shut.

[Tallguy 3,398]

37 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

1999, shortly after turning in his final cut of Eyes Wide Shut.

 

Reminder to self: Sarcasm doesn't work on the internet.

 

Yes, but he was clearly considered a film god through the 80's and 90's. When he'd only do two more films that were both considered almost afterthoughts. (Yes, I know Full Metal Jacket has it's fans. But it never quite got out from under the shadow of Platoon. But it had R. Lee Ermey. Imagine if he hadn't died before EWS came out. Is it weird that like the only thing I remember from that movie is Sydney Pollack?

[Edmilson 7,466]

Unpopular opinion: Lolita and Eyes Wide Shut are my favorite Kubrick movies. 

 

I'm not really a fan of 2001 though. But I also like The Shining, it's like my third favorite from him.

 

There's some stuff from him I haven't seen yet, like Paths of Glory and Spartacus 

[A24 4,338]

8 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

No. Funny girl made more money...

 

 

 

How much did Funny Girl make? And even if that is true (which I very much doubt), it doesn't change the fact that 2001: ASO is a movie that keeps on fascinating, even many decades after its release. Funny girl not so much ...

 

 

8 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

"Mixed reviews" was pretty well par for the course for Kubrick films at the time of release

 

Whether it's the critics or just mortal viewers like me, with Kubrick, it's subsequent viewing that often led to a change of heart. Today my favorite Kubrick movies are 2001: ASO and Eyes Wide Shut but they only became my favorites after I watched them 2 or 3 times. However, it can also go the other way as well. The last time I watched Barry Lyndon (a favorite to many) I found it to be overly static (except for the duels) and I noticed it did not engage me on a deeper level, which it did do the previous time I watched it. The latter says more about me than the movie, though.

[JTN 2,030]

My 5 favorite Kubrick films:

5. PATHS OF GLORY

4. FULL METAL JACKET

3. EYES WIDE SHUT

2. THE SHINING

1. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

3 hours ago, A24 said:

it doesn't change the fact that 2001: ASO is a movie that keeps on fascinating, even many decades after its release. Funny girl not so much ...

 

Like I said, I'm just saying what the film amounted to in its day. I'm not making any assertions as to what that does or doesn't mean as for the artistic merit of the movie.

 

That's quite beside the fact that I don't particularly care for the movie.

[crocodile 8,017]

7 hours ago, Edmilson said:

Unpopular opinion: Lolita and Eyes Wide Shut are my favorite Kubrick movies. 

 

I'm not really a fan of 2001 though. But I also like The Shining, it's like my third favorite from him.

 

There's some stuff from him I haven't seen yet, like Paths of Glory and Spartacus 

Paths of Glory is a must. Fantastic movie.

 

Karol

[Naïve Old Fart 9,542]

Indeed it is! 

 

Fave Kubricks?

 

1/ That space movie

2/ BARRY LYNDON 

3/ THE SHINING

4/ A CLOCKWORK ORANGE

5/ DR. STRANGELOVE 

 

 

 

[JTN 2,030]

17 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Indeed it is! 

 

Fave Kubricks?

 

1/ That space movie

2/ BARRY LYNDON 

3/ THE SHINING

4/ A CLOCKWORK ORANGE

5/ DR. STRANGELOVE 

 

 

 

What space movie?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,542]

1 hour ago, JTW said:

What space movie?

 

Eejit.

[JTN 2,030]

30 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

 

Eejit.

Old fart.

[Edmilson 7,466]

3 hours ago, JTW said:

What space movie?

Star Wars.

[Schilkeman 964]

How I learned to stop worrying and love Jabba the Hutt.

[A24 4,338]

Talking about Star Wars, to George Lucas 2001 is the ultimate science fiction movie. 

 

 

Alex - trying to save the thread from being Star Warsed

[Tallguy 3,398]

5 minutes ago, A24 said:

Talking about Star Wars, to George Lucas 2001 is the ultimate science fiction movie. 

 

 

Alex - trying to save the thread from being Star Warsed

 

To lots of people it is.

 

I'd go with something like The Martian or When Worlds Collide. (Yes, there are better movies.) The Abyss, Interstellar, and of course 2001 all rely on the "And then the impossibly advanced aliens show up" trope. It's literally deus ex machina. Funny that before we get to the space gods they're all pretty marvelous sci fi tech movies.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,542]

1 hour ago, JTW said:

Old fart.

 

Love you, too 

 

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, A24 said:

Talking about Star Wars, to George Lucas 2001 is the ultimate science fiction movie.

 

That's because it is. There is nothing else like it, there never has been, and there never will be.

It's a complete one-off.

[JTN 2,030]

25 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Love you, too 

Likewise.

 

26 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

That's because it is. There is nothing else like it, there never has been, and there never will be.

It's a complete one-off.

Couldn’t agree more.

And 2001 is far more than “just” sci-fi. To me it’s, along with BLADE RUNNER, one of the most important Films ever made. 

[GerateWohl 4,370]

45 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

 

To lots of people it is.

 

I'd go with something like The Martian or When Worlds Collide. (Yes, there are better movies.) The Abyss, Interstellar, and of course 2001 all rely on the "And then the impossibly advanced aliens show up" trope. It's literally deus ex machina. Funny that before we get to the space gods they're all pretty marvelous sci fi tech movies.

No Close Encounters of the Third Kind?

[JTN 2,030]

30 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

No Close Encounters of the Third Kind?

👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[Tallguy 3,398]

32 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

No Close Encounters of the Third Kind?

 

CE goes all in on the fantastic aliens from the start and keeps then the central focus of the plot.

 

A lot of this is subjective. I know TONS of people (including the cast) felt that The Abyss took a hard turn in the last act while I always felt the yes, it was a change in tone and setting but it was also set up from the beginning of the film. The same can surely be said about 2001. But both films took detours to far more "grounded" fair.

 

I feel a little bit less so about Interstellar. Quite a bit so, I suppose, since I can handle the endings of the other films and Interstellar goes completely off the rails for me.

[Mr. Hooper 1,793]

14 hours ago, Tallguy said:

Reminder to self: Sarcasm doesn't work on the internet.

I vacillated between "Is he serious?" and "I'm not sure what he's saying, so maybe he is."

 

Sure he was already worshipped by his aficionados—the "Kubrickites"—but I'd say it was only after his death that his legend grew to reach the general public. Death, as they say, can be a great career move.

 

By the way, I caught a late Halloween showing of The Shining last night at an old movie palace...

 

I was expecting the mostly young crowd to snicker the whole way through, but they were mesmerized, and you could hear a pin drop.

 

The sound system was great, and the selections from composer Krzysztof Penderecki in particular really stood out. Another smart move by Kubrick to mostly go with existant music. Maybe Jerry Goldsmith could elicit some similarly scary sounds from an orchestra, but nothing this impactful.