Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hellsfoxes t1_iyctl24 wrote

Reply to comment by WriterDave in Interesting essay on Steven Soderbergh’s SOLARIS, which is now 20 years old. by Bullingdon1973

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.

16

goodness___gracious t1_iycvjsf wrote

The planet Is the character.

3

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.”

4

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?".

4