Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Will the new "Solaris" film suck?

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters
View Poll Results: Will the new version of "Solaris" suck?
Yes
16
21.92%
No
20
27.40%
Too early to tell - let's wait for the movie
37
50.68%
Voters: 73. You may not vote on this poll

Will the new "Solaris" film suck?

Old 11-04-02, 11:02 AM
  #26  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 8,466
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I chose the third option. I want to see the film first.

George Clooney can be a great actor when he wants (Out of Sight, anyone?)
Old 11-04-02, 11:17 AM
  #27  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by CitizenKaneRBud
You guys fail to understand that Soderbergh's Solaris is NOT a remake of Tarkovsky's Solaris. Steven went back to the original source material for his film - the book.

If Soderbergh took Tarkovsky's script and re-filmed it, then it would be a remake. This is similar to what Tim Burton did (or tried to do) with Planet of the Apes. A 're-imagining,' if you will.

Do you guys consider Bazz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet a remake of Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet, or an adaptation of Shakespeare's play?
I hear what you're saying and I used to feel as you do. But have you taken a look at any of the stills for this movie that are on the net? All advanced word is that the film is slow and meditative. They aren't re-adapting the novel. They appear to be re-making the film, and attempting to capture Tarkovsky's style and poetry in the images. If they were re-adapting and re-imagining then howcome they built an identical set? The novel never describes the spacestation as being any specific shape or color, yet both films have the same set! Wow what a coincidence. Then Cloney looks a lot like the guy from Tarkovsky's film. Whatever... I'm still going to see this because i'm eager to compare...but it probably will be a ripoff job rather than a "reimagining"
Old 11-05-02, 05:29 PM
  #28  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Here is a great quote from Ain't it Cool that pretty much sums up what people's (uneducated) opinion of the film will be:
I felt the whole feel of the film was copied from 2001. They even used some minor score from 2001. It also ripped off from blade runner, aliens 2, event horizon and countless other sci-fi films. Its like Soderberg being new to Sci-fi production watched every major sci-fi movie in the past 30 years and just mixed and matched their script, production design, and cinematography.
By emulating a film that in one way or another influenced practicly every sci-fi film of the last 30 years Soderbugh will come off as a rip-off artist to those that don't know. It was a poor choice to stay so close to the source film because your average filmgoer (a person who hasn't seen or heard of the 1972 original) is going to say the film was nothing original, and is a rip off of, Sphere, Event Horizon, Blade Runner, etc. When in fact those films were rip offs of Solaris.

The wheel goes 'round and 'round
Old 11-05-02, 05:39 PM
  #29  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Hokeyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 20,423
Received 715 Likes on 439 Posts
Whoever said Out Of Sight is a bad movie is off of my Arbor Day Card list. That and Elizabeth were the best things that came out of Hollywood in 1998...

Vanilla Sky is a remake. It was based on material that previously and only existed as film. Soderbergh's Solaris is not. Solaris is NOT a remake, but an adaptation of a literary work -- that of Stanislaw Lem, and a science fiction classic at that. There is a difference...


Huston's The Maltese Falcon is not a remake either, for those who bring this misguided point every single time the "remake's aren't necessarily a bad thing" discussion.

That Dune TV miniseries? Adaptation. Same with the crappy ass Shining TV version. Blecch.
Old 11-06-02, 03:01 PM
  #30  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Rypro 525's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: a frikin hellhole
Posts: 28,263
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
no since
a. i have never seen (or heard of ) the original
and
b. sodenberg cameron and clooney make a dream pair.
Old 11-06-02, 11:51 PM
  #31  
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
When I saw the trailer on tv it looked like it was going to suck then I saw the internet exclusive trailer and that changed my opinion to maybe it wont suck
Old 11-07-02, 02:06 PM
  #32  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: America!
Posts: 33,921
Received 164 Likes on 120 Posts
Originally posted by Pants
Here is a great quote from Ain't it Cool that pretty much sums up what people's (uneducated) opinion of the film will be: By emulating a film that in one way or another influenced practicly every sci-fi film of the last 30 years Soderbugh will come off as a rip-off artist to those that don't know.
That's a great quote, and I only hope it comes true. I used to really, really like Soderburgh, and then I don't know what happened. Although I cared little for either Traffic or Erin Brockovich I was happy he got the recognition from the American movie-going public and AMPAS. I caught the tail-end of Sex, Lies, and Videotape the other day on cable and I was struck by how well it has held up. The guy wins the Palme D'Or with his debut, which only cost $1.2 million... How cool is that?
Old 11-07-02, 09:06 PM
  #33  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
no since
a. i have never seen (or heard of ) the original
and
b. sodenberg cameron and clooney make a dream pair.
Whoa... I wouldn't advertise on that first point...

as for the three caballeros mentioned making a perfect pair (you mean threesome?), they can all individually suck:

- Soderbergh with "Full Frontal" or "Out of Sight" - why do people like that film is beyond my comprehension - it's deja-vu all over...
- Clooney with the lame Batman movie and the totally unnecessary remake of "Fail-Safe"
- Cameron with "Piranha 2", that ridiculous "Dark Angel" series and his participation in "Rambo 2"

Last edited by Playitagainsam; 11-07-02 at 09:12 PM.
Old 11-24-02, 12:30 AM
  #34  
Cool New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I saw the preview of this movie several days ago and wanted to see what other people's opinions were. Apparently no one has posted yet, so I'll just add my opinion to this thread. Honestly, before reading this thread I had no idea that it was there was a previous movie named Solaris or a book, so I just evaluating the movie on its own. And I can unequivocably say that yes, this movie sucks.

It is HORRIBLE. It's alien movie meets chick-flick meets psychological drama and ends up a mess. The movie does aim to be allegorical -- examining the nature of consciousness -- but the allegory is stated so blatently and emphatically that it's annoying. Rather like anvils falling from the sky -- no subtlety at all. Since we were the last ones leaving the theater, I asked the person recording people's reactions what the other comments were like, and he hinted that most of the comments were similar to ours (though I was the first to use the word "allegory"). My husband and I are anxiously awaiting the critic's reviews to see if they agree with us. Anyway, here is not the thread to get into a deep discussion of the virtues (or lack thereof) of the the movie, but I wanted to get the word out that your money and time would be better spent at one of the other movies coming out this time of year.

As a side note, the fuss over Clooney's butt was ridiculous since the shots were completely gratuitious. It was obviously just a ploy to elicit interest in women and, since there were no complimentary butt shots of the female star, it just goes to show how much of a chick-flick this movie is (my husband and I both enjoy a well-made chick-flick [especially my husband, though he would be horrified to admit it], but pandering is insulting). My husband was quite miffed that there were no shots of women's butts and kept insulting me about it as if *I* filmed the movie.

Last edited by eartha; 11-24-02 at 12:32 AM.
Old 11-24-02, 12:38 AM
  #35  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Cromwell, CT
Posts: 5,494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry, but if it's some kind of love story in space, count me out....
Old 11-24-02, 11:48 AM
  #36  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: LA
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I also caught a screening of Solaris last week. I have not seen the original Solaris nor have I read the book, but I found this movie to be a good but far from great film. The premise seemed to me like that of a third rate sci-fi show, but Soderbergh manages to capture the right tone a create a fascinating atmosphere for most of the film. He also staged some striking compositions that really help the mood of the film. Overall, this is a meditative slowly paced film that may not break new ground but is still a fairly good film on its own.

But, to be honest I am surprised it was made on such a lavish scale as it does not seem to me to be a sure fire blockbuster or crowdpleaser like Ocean's 11. I think word of mouth may be very bad on this film and hurt its box office after opening weekend, but I would still give it a tentative recommendation to those who like slow contemplative films that rely of mood rather than dialogue.

B/B-
Old 11-24-02, 04:59 PM
  #37  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Deep inside a great big empty
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Robert
Its obviously going to suck because its a remake! DUH! Hello! Remakes=SUCK! If anyone says anything positive about this movie they should be hung, drawn, and quartered!
By that logic movies should not have continued past talkies and definitely not beyond B/W. What was the last film you saw that had a totally original concept? Will it be better? I don't know. Will it be good? I hope so, but for Pete's sake at least have the sense to see a movie before reviewing it.
Old 11-25-02, 09:51 AM
  #38  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally posted by CitizenKaneRBud
If Soderbergh took Tarkovsky's script and re-filmed it, then it would be a remake. This is similar to what Tim Burton did (or tried to do) with Planet of the Apes. A 're-imagining,' if you will.

Do you guys consider Bazz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet a remake of Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet, or an adaptation of Shakespeare's play?
Two bad examples. First, Burton's re-imagining of Planet of the Apes may be one of the worst movies ever made. Second, considering Luhrmann's concept for the film and its style, no one would seriously contend that it's a remake of a previously filmed version of Romeo and Juliet. Plus, Romeo and Juliet has been performed as a play thousands of times, no one person has a claim to being the only person who should make a Romeo and Juliet movie.

Soderbergh, on the other hand, copies Tarkovsky on many occasions in his "re-imagining" of Solaris, as we are hearing in this thread. Does "re-imagining" mean copying the original film down to particular shots and poses, and then adding in gratuitous nudity?

By the way, for anyone in Los Angeles, the Nuart theater is now playing a remastered print of Tarkovsky's Solaris. I would suggest catching that before you see the remake, or instead of seeing the remake.

Also, Criterion's DVD of Tarkovsky's film comes out tomorrow. Why not pick that up and watch it at home?
Old 11-25-02, 11:50 AM
  #39  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Just saw the 1972 version again and it is a stunning film. I like it more now than ever. I don't understand people who claim it is Tarkovsky's weakest film.

Anyway, I get a feeling from reading peoples reactions to previews that this remake will bomb hard. It might actually be pretty good (if totally dirivitive), but it seems clear that this film has NO audience. Sci-fi fans don't want to see a love story, and girls who like love stories and George Clooney's butt aren't going to go see a sci-fi film, and neither group is going to have the patience to consider the film's ponderous style. It's sad to say, but I have a feeling that people will walk out of this watered-down 96 minute art film with a "what the f*** was that?" attitude. I wonder what they'd say if they saw Tarkovsky's 2 hour 45 min original?

Last edited by Pants; 11-25-02 at 04:20 PM.
Old 11-25-02, 04:07 PM
  #40  
Moderator
 
Geofferson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Village Green
Posts: 39,801
Received 112 Likes on 91 Posts
From all I've heard and read about this over the weekend - I think it'll be wonderful. I can't wait for Wednesday night! However, I will say I do not expect it to be on par with the original.
Old 11-26-02, 03:42 PM
  #41  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just saw the 1972 version again and it is a stunning film. I like it more now than ever. I don't understand people who claim it is Tarkovsky's weakest film.
Well, I think most folks who say this are repeating Tarkovsky, himself, who believed it to be the least of his films. But I think many audiences connected less with "Nostalghia" and "The Sacrifice" than "Solaris" (perhaps because Tarkovsky's hardcore Christian mysticism was so pronounced in those final two films).

I love Tarkovsky's "Solaris", but it ranks near the bottom of my Tarkovsky list, too. But that's one hell of a list.
Old 11-26-02, 04:19 PM
  #42  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I put only Stalker and Andrei Rublev above it. I think it's better than Mirror!!!
Old 11-27-02, 09:16 AM
  #43  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,227
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I've been aching to see a Tarkovsky film since watching Sokurov's 1988 documentary about him, Moscow Elegy, earlier this year.

So the 1972 Solaris is my introduction to the works of Tarkovsky. I bought and watched the Criterion release last night. Quite amazing, the atmosphere, the compositions and camera work, the spare, but sumptuous visuals, just the easy, languid pace and naturalistic performances ooze with a mythic resonance rarely seen.

I can't see how Soderbergh could equal the original's elegant stillness in such a short running time (not that I expect him to). So I'd imagine that the success of the 2002 version hinges on the performances. In my opinion Soderbergh excels at adaptive directing: his style can shift with the content really well but at the cost of omitting personality.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.