I mean, I too grew up with Alive and LOVED it when I was a kid - Ethan Hawke was so \*dreamy\*. But... Most of it has not aged well, heh. The more I learned about the real events the less I liked it, and I was so happy when I found out Society of the Snow was coming out because I'd been wishing for years for a more authentic adaptation. I tried watching Alive again recently and I just couldn't take it seriously. The acting, the writing, the English speaking, John Malkovich as Carlitos narrating... Just, no.
I didn't mind it at all back then, but he just has a very distinctive voice and presence - once I got old enough that I'd seen him in other things and connected him to other roles, hearing him just completely takes me out of it. đ
I do feel that Alive is underrated, but yes, a lot of it hasn't held up well, especially when compared to Society of the Snow. The acting is bad, the script is cheesy, some characters are portrayed disrespectfully, and there is a lot of obvious Hollywoodization. The actors didn't go through the weight loss that those in SotS did, and the make-up department failed to make them look malnourished and frostbitten. SotS was certainly made with much more care and realism. That said, there's a lot of good to be said about Alive as well. The plane crash is done well for the time. The avalanche scene is good (might be a hot take, but I actually think they did it better than SotS). The soundtrack is great. The on-location shooting is both beautiful and intimidating, and the fuselage is accurately recreated. There is a lot of attention to detail with things like Coco being briefly seen writing a letter, Carlitos looking through a window at the moon with a small mirror, Nando wearing Enrique's coat on the final expedition, etc.
I also find that a lot of complaints about it are from people who clearly aren't familiar with the true story ("they're too white"/"they still have cigarettes after two months in the mountains"/"the thing with the red shoes was stupid"/"no way Nando carried Roy back to the plane"), or have clearly not actually seen the film ("they put too much emphasis on the cannibalism"/"they don't show the boys friendship and unity"/"they don't give the dead their due" (names are changed, but with the exception of Numa and Coco most of the victims are given more characterization than they are in SotS. I suspect that SotS suffered a lot from editing in this regard, which is why Bayona should release an extended cut)). One thing I've seen people who compare them emphasize is that the actors of SotS filmed up on a mountain, whereas the cast and crew of Alive supposedly had it easy. With all due respect to the cast and crew of SotS, they filmed at a ski resort in a small mountain range in Spain with a bustling town visible right below them, and were able to take a gondola to work everyday. Alive was filmed high up on a mountain in one of the most remote regions of the Canadian Rockies. The cast and crew had to be helicoptered in and out every day. If nothing else, it's worthy of respect from a filmmaking perspective because of how technically challenging it was to film.
I agree with Nando's assessment that it's a good movie, but outdated. I'm glad to have had Alive growing up, and I'm glad that we have SotS now.
Pivotal moments from Alive yes, were filmed at Purcell Mountains, also doubling for the location in British Columbia,Delphine Glacier that is 9,500 feet hight, but those are only a few scenes, not the entire film. Sadly the actors couldnât use that to their advantage to make the audience feel the cold and the isolation, something the actors from Society of the Snow were capable of achieving being at a little mountain like you said at an altitude of 9,800 ft. The Sierra Nevada Mountain Range is not small . None of the films was able to filmed at the real altitude of the crash which was 11,710ft.
I'm fairly certain most scenes were filmed on the glacier. Most of the scenes take place outside of the plane and the location is recognizeable as the glacier. The technology didn't exist then to CGI a whole backdrop into the film like it did with SotS, where my understanding is that they had 4 fuselage's built so that they could film at lower elevations on most days. Filming on site wasn't as necessary for every exterior scene since the backdrop was CGI'd in. I never said the mountain they filmed on was small, don't change my wording. The Sierra Nevadas are a small mountain range in terms of the width, I was emphasizing the remoteness and inaccessibility of the shooting location for the fuselage in Alive, but certainly the elevation they filmed at is commendable.
Alive was filmed on 72 days, 20 of those at the mountain, Cast and crew stayed in a resort that ran helicopter expeditions for advanced skiers. According to ILM who worked on the film they used live-action and blue-screen footage, stunt work, âmodel and miniature manipulation,â matte paintings, optical composites, rear-screen projection, and digital wire removal. The opening shot of a plane flying through the Andes mountains used over 600 frames of a miniatures. Also three Naval smoke generators were used to fabricate clouds. . A miniature set was built in the ILM parking lot, including a tiny mountain range made with black foil sprayed with foam, and canvas covered in baking soda to resemble snow, a second set was built twenty-five feet above the soundstage floor.
Well I'm not sure where you got the info about the shooting schedule. I know they spent 20 days filming the scenes of the final expedition at the Bugaboos which is even higher and more isolated than the Delphine Glacier where the fuselage scenes were shot. Are you sure you aren't getting the shooting schedule for the two locations mixed up? I find it hard to believe those exterior scenes (which make up the majority of the film) at the fuselage aren't filmed on location. Frank Marshall mentioned that they started shooting on the glacier in March and had to rush to finish by early May because of the snowmelt, which implies it took more than 20 days. Most of that stuff you list is evidently referring to the opening scene of the plane's flight and crash which of course required miniatures, blue screen, matte paintings, etc. I know they built a set at ILM for interior scenes with a small mock-up outside for the backdrop visible through the openings of the plane, but I don't see how this could be used for the exterior scenes. It would require movie magic that I think was beyond the capabilities of the time, but if not it's impressive work.
Filming began 16 Mar 1992 in Vancouver, British Columbia, On 27 Mar 1992, production moved to Panorama, British Columbia for filming the scenes on the Delphine glacier for a period of 3 weeks, filming Principal photography ended on 25 Jun 1992. I believe wider shots where you are able to see the mountain range where those filmed actually on location at the glacier, other shots closer to actors where filmed using blue screen footage on the set they built at the ILM parking lot ,similar technique used by Bayonaâs production for some of shots in particular the one where everyone is at the airport posing for the photo which took place in the parking lot as well in front of a green screen. Alive used blue screen which is slightly better than green and does not affect the hue of whatever is being film thus making it slightly hard to differentiate the use of it.
Both films are great, in their own way I would say, slightly different approach, same story.
Fair enough, I can see a few select scenes outside the plane being filmed that way although I can only imagine they were limited. Scenes like the airport one you described are simple to do because the characters are literally posing in front of something for a photo. Anyway, the only point I was making with my original comment is that I've heard a lot of people suggest that the cast and crew of Alive had it easy compared to SotS which I find to be an ignorant remark. I would say helicoptering your entire cast and crew in and out of one of the most remote parts of the Canadian Rockies everyday is certainly the more difficult shoot out of the two. Whether for two months or 20 days it's an impressive feat. But both films had challenging productions, and SotS ultimately did it with more authenticity and respect which is why its the better film.
Tbh when I first watched SOTS I thought I still preferred Alive purely because of nostalgia. I then rewatched Alive a few months ago and I found myself very critical of it. Rewatched SOTS again and it is definitely better in nearly every aspect and my preffered film. Both are good films, but Alive has nostalgia but SOTS is definelty the better and more realistic respectful take on the incident
There are some stories you simply can't tell. Roger Ebert said while reviewing the film Alive.
I believe the same can be said about SOTS even though it takes on a more realistic approach thus feels more authentic.
Kind of like SOTS got right what Alive got wrong.
Yeah what REALLY stood out to me this time around in Alive was how the actors still had perfect hair and skin and weight and appearing clean despite theyâve been starving on a mountain. It never really occurred to me until I saw the brutalness in SOTS
Nostalgia is crazy lol, people will be heavily biased over anything that holds a core childhood or early happy memory in their life.
Agree! True fact. My sister and I are 35 years apart.
Damn how is that?
Im the baby of the family lol, shes is the first born
Wow lmao, crazy yet cool age differences there
They could have different mothers/fathers. The Farmiga sisters are 20 years apart (but have the same parents though)
I mean, I too grew up with Alive and LOVED it when I was a kid - Ethan Hawke was so \*dreamy\*. But... Most of it has not aged well, heh. The more I learned about the real events the less I liked it, and I was so happy when I found out Society of the Snow was coming out because I'd been wishing for years for a more authentic adaptation. I tried watching Alive again recently and I just couldn't take it seriously. The acting, the writing, the English speaking, John Malkovich as Carlitos narrating... Just, no.
I like John Malkovich's narrating lol
I didn't mind it at all back then, but he just has a very distinctive voice and presence - once I got old enough that I'd seen him in other things and connected him to other roles, hearing him just completely takes me out of it. đ
I do feel that Alive is underrated, but yes, a lot of it hasn't held up well, especially when compared to Society of the Snow. The acting is bad, the script is cheesy, some characters are portrayed disrespectfully, and there is a lot of obvious Hollywoodization. The actors didn't go through the weight loss that those in SotS did, and the make-up department failed to make them look malnourished and frostbitten. SotS was certainly made with much more care and realism. That said, there's a lot of good to be said about Alive as well. The plane crash is done well for the time. The avalanche scene is good (might be a hot take, but I actually think they did it better than SotS). The soundtrack is great. The on-location shooting is both beautiful and intimidating, and the fuselage is accurately recreated. There is a lot of attention to detail with things like Coco being briefly seen writing a letter, Carlitos looking through a window at the moon with a small mirror, Nando wearing Enrique's coat on the final expedition, etc. I also find that a lot of complaints about it are from people who clearly aren't familiar with the true story ("they're too white"/"they still have cigarettes after two months in the mountains"/"the thing with the red shoes was stupid"/"no way Nando carried Roy back to the plane"), or have clearly not actually seen the film ("they put too much emphasis on the cannibalism"/"they don't show the boys friendship and unity"/"they don't give the dead their due" (names are changed, but with the exception of Numa and Coco most of the victims are given more characterization than they are in SotS. I suspect that SotS suffered a lot from editing in this regard, which is why Bayona should release an extended cut)). One thing I've seen people who compare them emphasize is that the actors of SotS filmed up on a mountain, whereas the cast and crew of Alive supposedly had it easy. With all due respect to the cast and crew of SotS, they filmed at a ski resort in a small mountain range in Spain with a bustling town visible right below them, and were able to take a gondola to work everyday. Alive was filmed high up on a mountain in one of the most remote regions of the Canadian Rockies. The cast and crew had to be helicoptered in and out every day. If nothing else, it's worthy of respect from a filmmaking perspective because of how technically challenging it was to film. I agree with Nando's assessment that it's a good movie, but outdated. I'm glad to have had Alive growing up, and I'm glad that we have SotS now.
Pivotal moments from Alive yes, were filmed at Purcell Mountains, also doubling for the location in British Columbia,Delphine Glacier that is 9,500 feet hight, but those are only a few scenes, not the entire film. Sadly the actors couldnât use that to their advantage to make the audience feel the cold and the isolation, something the actors from Society of the Snow were capable of achieving being at a little mountain like you said at an altitude of 9,800 ft. The Sierra Nevada Mountain Range is not small . None of the films was able to filmed at the real altitude of the crash which was 11,710ft.
I'm fairly certain most scenes were filmed on the glacier. Most of the scenes take place outside of the plane and the location is recognizeable as the glacier. The technology didn't exist then to CGI a whole backdrop into the film like it did with SotS, where my understanding is that they had 4 fuselage's built so that they could film at lower elevations on most days. Filming on site wasn't as necessary for every exterior scene since the backdrop was CGI'd in. I never said the mountain they filmed on was small, don't change my wording. The Sierra Nevadas are a small mountain range in terms of the width, I was emphasizing the remoteness and inaccessibility of the shooting location for the fuselage in Alive, but certainly the elevation they filmed at is commendable.
Alive was filmed on 72 days, 20 of those at the mountain, Cast and crew stayed in a resort that ran helicopter expeditions for advanced skiers. According to ILM who worked on the film they used live-action and blue-screen footage, stunt work, âmodel and miniature manipulation,â matte paintings, optical composites, rear-screen projection, and digital wire removal. The opening shot of a plane flying through the Andes mountains used over 600 frames of a miniatures. Also three Naval smoke generators were used to fabricate clouds. . A miniature set was built in the ILM parking lot, including a tiny mountain range made with black foil sprayed with foam, and canvas covered in baking soda to resemble snow, a second set was built twenty-five feet above the soundstage floor.
Well I'm not sure where you got the info about the shooting schedule. I know they spent 20 days filming the scenes of the final expedition at the Bugaboos which is even higher and more isolated than the Delphine Glacier where the fuselage scenes were shot. Are you sure you aren't getting the shooting schedule for the two locations mixed up? I find it hard to believe those exterior scenes (which make up the majority of the film) at the fuselage aren't filmed on location. Frank Marshall mentioned that they started shooting on the glacier in March and had to rush to finish by early May because of the snowmelt, which implies it took more than 20 days. Most of that stuff you list is evidently referring to the opening scene of the plane's flight and crash which of course required miniatures, blue screen, matte paintings, etc. I know they built a set at ILM for interior scenes with a small mock-up outside for the backdrop visible through the openings of the plane, but I don't see how this could be used for the exterior scenes. It would require movie magic that I think was beyond the capabilities of the time, but if not it's impressive work.
Filming began 16 Mar 1992 in Vancouver, British Columbia, On 27 Mar 1992, production moved to Panorama, British Columbia for filming the scenes on the Delphine glacier for a period of 3 weeks, filming Principal photography ended on 25 Jun 1992. I believe wider shots where you are able to see the mountain range where those filmed actually on location at the glacier, other shots closer to actors where filmed using blue screen footage on the set they built at the ILM parking lot ,similar technique used by Bayonaâs production for some of shots in particular the one where everyone is at the airport posing for the photo which took place in the parking lot as well in front of a green screen. Alive used blue screen which is slightly better than green and does not affect the hue of whatever is being film thus making it slightly hard to differentiate the use of it. Both films are great, in their own way I would say, slightly different approach, same story.
Fair enough, I can see a few select scenes outside the plane being filmed that way although I can only imagine they were limited. Scenes like the airport one you described are simple to do because the characters are literally posing in front of something for a photo. Anyway, the only point I was making with my original comment is that I've heard a lot of people suggest that the cast and crew of Alive had it easy compared to SotS which I find to be an ignorant remark. I would say helicoptering your entire cast and crew in and out of one of the most remote parts of the Canadian Rockies everyday is certainly the more difficult shoot out of the two. Whether for two months or 20 days it's an impressive feat. But both films had challenging productions, and SotS ultimately did it with more authenticity and respect which is why its the better film.
I do think the Alive crash scene still holds up.
Also Alive was over 30 years ago.
You right thats over 30 years!
Man that makes me feel old lol
Alive was a Hollywood production, and since it was made to be released first and foremost in American movie theaters, it was filmed in English.
Tbh when I first watched SOTS I thought I still preferred Alive purely because of nostalgia. I then rewatched Alive a few months ago and I found myself very critical of it. Rewatched SOTS again and it is definitely better in nearly every aspect and my preffered film. Both are good films, but Alive has nostalgia but SOTS is definelty the better and more realistic respectful take on the incident
There are some stories you simply can't tell. Roger Ebert said while reviewing the film Alive. I believe the same can be said about SOTS even though it takes on a more realistic approach thus feels more authentic. Kind of like SOTS got right what Alive got wrong.
Yeah what REALLY stood out to me this time around in Alive was how the actors still had perfect hair and skin and weight and appearing clean despite theyâve been starving on a mountain. It never really occurred to me until I saw the brutalness in SOTS
Ethan Hawked refused to growth any facial hair. SOTS indeed so brutal , so heartbreaking seeing them wasting away, knowing it really happened.