WriterDave t1_iybqnle wrote
The whole point of the original story was THE PLANET.
It's alive, or at the very least it's sentient. It wants to communicate.
So badly, in fact, it's poking around in our primitive minds, making replicas of our loved ones hoping we will communicate back.
I'll never understand how such a talented filmmaker could write and direct a version of this story and 100% completely miss the point.
This isn't a love story in space. It's not about a guy falling in love with a ghost.
Sodeburgh's movie left out Solaris.
How?!
It's right there in the title!
dzhastin t1_iybs0l1 wrote
Sodebergh probably fell asleep during the original and missed the point. It’s a classic movie, but man, does Tarkovsky take his time. The scene where they seemingly spend 90 uncut minutes driving through tunnels in Japan hypnotized me and put me to sleep. When I woke up the same driving scene was still going on!
I still prefer the Tarkovsky but the soundtrack in the Sodebergh version is phenomenal.
eventhegreyscant t1_iydng2b wrote
> but man, does Tarkovsky take his time
He literally called his entire philosophy "Sculpting in Time"
warpus t1_iyc6z4o wrote
The movie is technically based on the novel though and not the older movie adaptation, although to be fair that adaptation is a pretty good one, if missing some of the Lem like nuances.
I bet what happened was the studio said “Uh that won’t sell, focus the story on the wife instead”
Neckwrecker t1_iycxnew wrote
>Sodebergh probably fell asleep during the original and missed the point. It’s a classic movie, but man, does Tarkovsky take his time. The scene where they seemingly spend 90 uncut minutes driving through tunnels in Japan hypnotized me and put me to sleep. When I woke up the same driving scene was still going on! > >I still prefer the Tarkovsky but the soundtrack in the Sodebergh version is phenomenal.
I'm gonna be honest, I started nodding off during the original in the 3rd act. I did enjoy it though, I just had to rewatch some of it.
iDuddits_ t1_iyd4gyq wrote
2001 puts me to sleep too!
Abba_Fiskbullar t1_iydg91f wrote
Tarkovsky can be hard. I love Stalker, it's some kind of hypnotic cinematic bliss for me, but I just couldn't stay focused on Tarkovsky's Solaris and I've never finished it.
dzhastin t1_iydp4p7 wrote
Stalker is an all-time great. Solaris picks up and becomes a great movie once they get off the Earth, but they fart around for a long time first.
GetToSreppin t1_iybxnf2 wrote
But Soderberg didn't miss the point. He was just making a different point than the other versions of the story.
warpus t1_iyc7mnu wrote
He basically took Lem’s story, took out most of the elements that Lem was focusing on (alien contact) and shifted the focus on the wife and love angle, which in the novel is not a focus in any way.
Which is fine! He took an existing story and saw something else in it and made it into something different and new, keeping the setting the same. That happens all the time with the creative process, right? No problem there.
This is why the author didn’t like the movie though. From his pov the movie title implies that it’s the same story as the novel, but it’s very different. Whether you hold the same view or not, surely we can appreciate that position. He probably initially thought the movie was going to mirror the book and got disappointed when it became a love story instead and something much simpler. As an artist I can relate to that.
So yeah, Sodenberg made his own point and ran with it and that’s fine. Creative freedom and all that. As long as we acknowledge that the point of the novel was completely different and that the movie is not a faithful adaptation or anything close for that. It’s not meant to be a faithful adaptation though so it doesn’t fail in that regard. but some people trip up here due to the same title and setting, so they assume the book and the movie tell the same story. I think this is also another reason why the author was a bit miffed, being an eccentric creative type
WriterDave t1_iybzomu wrote
Not according to the author of the book:
> "...to my best knowledge, the book was not dedicated to erotic problems of people in outer space... As Solaris' author I shall allow myself to repeat that I only wanted to create a vision of a human encounter with something that certainly exists, in a mighty manner perhaps, but cannot be reduced to human concepts, ideas or images. This is why the book was entitled Solaris and not Love in Outer Space."
— Stanislaw Lem, 2002
Point is, if Sodeburgh wanted to make "Love in Outer Space" he shouldn't have called it Solaris.
'Rosencranz and Guildenstern Are Dead' is brilliant... and look -- they didn't call it 'Hamlet.'
GetToSreppin t1_iydenkq wrote
I'm not sure if you knew this or not but soderberg didn't write the book. His movie isn't the book and thusly has a different pov and message. This is the core idea of what adaptations can be.
hellsfoxes t1_iyctl24 wrote
This is true but I don’t deduct points because of it. Sodenbergh is clearly pushing deeper into the characters very subjective experience with grief and loss and the allure of a second chance. Bringing in the planets motivation would be purely expositional in this remake and not add to the characters journey. Not to everyone’s taste but it worked well for me in this version and we still have the original movie.
It’s a bit like Stephen King hating Kubrick’s Shining for ‘missing the point’ but I think it’s okay for different versions to stand apart.
goodness___gracious t1_iycvjsf wrote
The planet Is the character.
hellsfoxes t1_iydfup0 wrote
Right but a counter argument is still fine as long as we accept that a remake doesn’t have to stay true to the source and can be it’s own thing.
The Shining example:
Stephen King: “But the alcoholic father IS the character!”
Kubrick: “Nah the hotel.”
Mr_Charles___ t1_iydz7yk wrote
It's an especially weird complaint to make given that Tarkovsky's version also missed the point of the original by focusing on the humans instead of the planet. And was also criticized for it by Lem. Additional source.
But then again I have come to accept that redditors only care about faithfulness to the source material when it's source material they personally care about.
If they don't care about the source material, they're all "But adaptions don't have to be faithful". When they do care about the source material they go "how could they possibly miss the point! Why did they think they were so much smarter than the original writers?".
SaneesvaraSFW t1_iyf4lix wrote
The planet is a character.
SergeantChic t1_iyesif5 wrote
It's not even an ocean planet in Soderbergh's version. I usually like his movies, but this was not his best work.
SoulCruizer t1_iyekblg wrote
He didn’t miss the point though, he went in a different more interesting direction.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments