The new _Solaris_ (trailers included). (1 Viewer)

[Joshua FS]

Sounds like a happier version of Event Horizon

 

[Ted Todorov]

Ted -- You are mincing words. If Soderbergh were to adapt A Clockwork Orange, would it be a remake of a classic film or simply another adaptation of Burgess' novel?

Stanislaw Lem himself was unhappy with Tarkovsky's adaptation of his his book. I had read Solaris several times before seeing Tarkovsky's film, and while I agree it is a great piece of filmmaking it is far from a good adaptation of Lem. There is plenty of room for a better job.
OK, Patrick let me ask you: are all 24 or 66 versions of Hamlet just a bunch of remakes of the 1907 silent French original? The 1948 Olivier film, just another worthless remake?
The examples are endless -- I'm going to spare you a list of the versions of Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth etc., etc. Do you think that the Haley Mills Parent Trap was an original work, and the recent Dennis Quaid movie a remake? Think again: the 1961 adaptation (massacre is more like it) of Erich Kastner's book, The Double Lottchen was already filmed several times, including by the famed Emmeric Pressburger.
A Clockwork Orange is a terrible example, because unlike Tarkovsky, Kubrik was extremely faithful to the book.
Give it up. Solaris is not a remake. The existence of one film based on a work for another medium does not make all subsequent films remakes. It is certainly possible to remake such a film, if instead of going back to the original work you use the screenplay of the previous film or even do a shot for shot copy a la Gus Van Sant's Psycho. In the case of Solaris the script for the Tarkovsky film is not being used -- they have gone back to Lem's book.
Ted

 

[Roland G]

Are you sure that they have gone back to Lem's book?

Sure they are going to show stuff that Tarkovsky couldn't have done because it just wasn't possible back than, but from what i have heard this is going to be a remake of Tarkovskys film.

well only time will tell...

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Ted -- you are stretching. You need to use HAMLET in your argument? Oh boy.
Also, since when did an author of a book decide when it needs to be redone? Thats how we ended up with the awful miniseries of The Shining or the putrid Adrian Lyne version of Lolita.
:rolleyes
The simple fact is that when the first film is great in its own right, an subsequent films based on the text will be considered a "remake" of a prior film. Of course there are exceptions but this Solaris, IMO, is not one of them.
Now, if someone wants to revisit Bonfire of the Vanities, I won't call it a remake.

 

[Nick Sievers]

AICN has a couple of early reviews of Solaris, there is one very positive, and one very negative. I think i'll stick with the positive person's review, he praises the film for letting his brain work overtime well after the film had finished. Sounds great to me. Anyway its linked HERE. Enjoy.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Glad to hear he liked it, but it sounds like this guy's never been exposed to (ahem "real") sci-fi before, much less Tarkovsky's take on the genre...

"The rest of the movie is intense. It makes you think, that’s for sure. I’m still thinking, in fact: my brain hurts. It’s definitely not something you’ve seen before."

Well, it's not something he's seen before!

And the second review was written by someone for whom we should all wish a long, long life, for everyday he continues to draw breath is yet one more chance he won't die a fuckin' idjit.

It's amazing to me how clueless the "reviewers" on that site tend to be. They haven't the first notion about film history, sci-fi generally, or presumably how to feed themselves without a nice handy trough 'n ladle. And the readers' responses? "Sounds like Event Horizon"? Uh, sounds like you just might be a moron.

(Am I feeling testy today or what?) :b

 

[Ted Todorov]

Also, since when did an author of a book decide when it needs to be redone? Thats how we ended up with the awful miniseries of The Shining or the putrid Adrian Lyne version of Lolita.

If not the author then, who??? I mean really, is this how little respect we have for the a given work's original creator? Of course the writer should have the most say, considerably more than s/he tends to be given by Hollywood. I am sorry, I may be a huge film buff, but I know not try to compare the value of film and its creators to that of literature and its creators -- there is no comparison.
And for your information Vladimir Nabokov died in 1977, so how you manage to blame him for Lyne's Lolita, which was released 20 years after his death, is completely beyond me.
Ted

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Ted -- Nabakov wrote a screenplay for the orignal Lolita which was for the most part discarded by Kubrick. Obviously, Nabakov wasn't hanging around the set with Adrian. Mr. Lyne felt compelled to "remake" an already classic film to stay "truer" to the original text.

Authors of books are completely meaningless once the rights are sold for a film. Books don't lend themselves to literal film translations due to usual time constraints of film. The director has to make choices, and in many cases, improving upon the original work to make it play on the screen. (Nicholson carrying an axe and dying frozen in the snow are MUCH more powerful than Stephen King's rendition, IMO)

The author has nothing to say about how a director translates a work to film unless of course the director WANTS an author to have a say. Writers are often not wanted on the set at all.

Back to The Shining, Kubrick knew the novel was crap but he liked parts of it. He liked concepts in it but the overall book to him was garbage which needed to be changed. This is of course a drastic example but the director has within his/her power the ability to change a book, for better or worse. Without that power, the art of cinematic storytelling is dead.

Feel free to tell me I'm wrong again.

 

[Vickie_M]

I don't understand you. On the one hand you're decrying how the writers are never taken seriously, and on the other, you like the changes that the previous filmmakers made and are against other filmmakers who want to try and be more faithful to the books.
I'm confused.

Feel free to tell me I'm wrong again.

You are. The book "The Shining" is neither "crap" nor "garbage."
I don't think the newer versions of "The Shining" or "Lolita" are anywhere near as good as the Kubrick versions, they're not even in the same league, but just because Kubrick did the "originals" doesn't mean that no one else should ever try a refilm, ever again. That's putting a stopper on interpretating art, and I don't believe in that. Lyne failed Nabokov, Garris failed King, and Soderbergh might well fail Lem too, but there's no reason not to try, other than the fact that movies are so expensive to make.
(Personally, I'd like to see Peter Jackson film a version of "The Shining" and Todd Solondz film a version of "Lolita." I'm kidding about one of those.)

 

[Patrick Larkin]

A Clockwork Orange is a terrible example, because unlike Tarkovsky, Kubrik was extremely faithful to the book.

If you call completely changing the ending, changing the main character's age, omitting Alex's prison murder, changing the cat lady's age, etc being faithful. As for the ending, Kubrick's explanation:

"This extra chapter depicts the rehabilitation of Alex. But it is, as far as I am concerned, unconvincing and inconsistent with the style and intent of the book. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the publisher had somehow prevailed upon Burgess to tack on the extra chapter against his better judgment, so the book would end on a more positive note. I certainly never gave any serious consideration to using it. "

How dare Kubrick change the book! The audacity.

On the ending of the Shining:

"To be honest, the end of the book seemed a bit hackneyed to me and not very interesting. I wanted an ending which the audience could not anticipate. In the film, they think Hallorann is going to save Wendy and Danny. When he is killed they fear the worst. Surely, they fear, there is no way now for Wendy and Danny to escape. The maze ending may have suggested itself from the animal topiary scenes in the novel. I don't actually remember how the idea first came about. "

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Vickie wrote:

Garris failed King

No, the miniseries failed for the opposite reason. Because King sanctioned the remake (re-film) and Garris held too tightly to the text.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Ted -- Nabakov wrote a screenplay for the orignal Lolita which was for the most part discarded by Kubrick. Obviously, Nabakov wasn't hanging around the set with Adrian. Mr. Lyne felt compelled to "remake" an already classic film to stay "truer" to the original text.

First, Lyne's version of "Lolita" is certainly putrid crap. Second, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Nabokov's script from which Kubrick deviated.

For one, Nabokov certainlyly knew quite well that Humbert's "ana lee" story was self-serving bullshit, and was to be taken not only as an obvious allusion to Poe, but also a skewering of Freudian psychoanalysis. That Lyne not only took this bit literally, but used it as the linchpin by which he converted Nabokov's brilliant satire into his own hamfisted tragedy, is certainly not Nabokov's fault.

But I think Nabokov's son should share the blame with Adrian Lyne. After all, it was he who allowed "The Enchanter" to be published after his father's death, as well as giving that hack Lyne the rights to do the "Lolita" movie.

But you can't blame VN or Kubrick for Lyne's ridiculous foray into waters clearly too deep for him.

 

[Rich Malloy]

And I realize much of what I said in the previous post could be extrapolated into an argument against Soderbergh remaking Lem's novel... but Soderbergh has proven himself a much better and smarter director than the hack-Lyne!

(Good god, don't go provin' me wrong, Stevie!) :b

 

[Anthony_Kleiner]

There's a full preview article on www.ew.com
http://www.ew.com/ew/package/0,12938...sofall,00.html
http://www.ew.com/ew/preview/movie/0...olaris,00.html
And the very last paragraph speaks alot of truth.

THE LOWDOWN ''Not an art film'' will be good news for those turned off by Soderbergh's ''Full Frontal.'' Then again, brainy sci-fi doesn't always play well with audiences (see: ''A.I.'').

 

[Ted Todorov]

Quote:

Great -- all authors are good for is to sign a piece of paper, so then the all wise and all knowing director can bar them from the set and ignore their stupid advice. And of course authors are too dumb to know difference between books and film... Please tell me you don't actually believe this nonsense.
I don't know where to start -- I'll bet you haven't even read Lem's Solaris -- which is a considerably greater work of art than Tarkovsky's film.
You most certainly can make great films out of first rate books, and the authors will be happy as well. Take James Ellroy's L.A. Confidential which was radically changed between page and screen, but it's spirit stayed completely intact. He was interviewed on the DVD and you can tell he is damned happy with the results. Or take very faithful Philip Kaufman/Jean-Claude Carrière adaptation of Milan Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being -- a great book turned into a great film. I don't hear Kundera complaining.
Ted

 

[Mattias Stridsman]

The official Solaris site is up: www.solaristhemovie.com
There's some interesting information there - I recommend taking a look. There's no clips available besides the trailer, but there will be later. Overall a well-made and tasteful site.
Looking forward to this one!

 

[teapot2001]

I saw a pretty long TV spot during Friends last night that made it seem like Ghost.

~T

 

[Rich Malloy]

It is like "Ghost"... except that the visitors aren't ghosts, aren't even exactly the people they appear to represent, and have more to do with the tragic grief and deeply burdened consciences of those for whom they manifest than the simple rekindling of a sappy love affair cut short... plus they begin to provide a means to overcome the inability of two wildly-different, though sentient species to begin to communicate.
.

In short, Thi, don't take comparisons to "Ghost" or "Event Horizon" or any other cheesy, low-IQ bit of celluloid pabulum as being indicative of "Solaris". So long as Soderbergh didn't sell it out, it won't be the simple-minded or sappy or contrived reflection of these stories which seem to bear it a slight surface similarity.

 

[Jordan_E]

I saw the trailer on TV as well and the wife immediately asked "what the hell was that?" but I kept my mouth shut. The trailer did not convince me to see it at all.

And THE SHINING the novel is fantastic!

 

[Rich Malloy]

Having missed the trailer, what put you off Jordan? Was it unlike "Solaris"? Or unlike whatever your expectations of "Solaris" were? (That is, are you a fan of Lem's novel, Tarkovsky's film, or are you approaching this without "a history" with this work, so to speak?)