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.”

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.

Fantastic movie. Lives in the shadow of the original so between cinephiles who think it’s not as good and mainstream audiences who don’t fancy slow art house space dramas, it gets no traction. But it’s amazing.