Is Solaris good book?

Tak.

>>9416633
Excellent, as all his works.

>>9416633
Yep, beats the shit out of the Tarkovsky film version.

>>9417004
No it doesn't, hopeless pleb.

Tak.

>>9417006
Yes, it does

>>9416633
That and Master's Voice are top tier "sci-fi"

>>9417166
No, it doesn't.

>>9416633
yes

After reading the book the movie felt so empty.

File: 1473787885739.jpg (191KB, 989x716px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 989x716px

>>9416633
It's proprietary.

Movie first or book first?

>>9417689
Book first - movie never.

Well... ok... Tarkowski's movie from '72 isn't that bad.

>>9417710
This is not always true. The movie versions of the Shining and No Country for Old Men were both better than the books.

>>9416633

I liked the book a lot better than the movie (movie was still good,tho)

>>9417532
DELET THIS

>>9417716
Every adaption from a SK novel is better, because King can't write for shit.

>>9417716
I was specifically talking about Solaris.
And I agree, there are indeed some movies which are better than the books they're based on. I'd add Trainspotting and Fight Club to your list for example.

>>9416633
Yes it's fucking great.
>>9417004
I read it after having seen the film, I appreciate both. I think the more explicit way of dealing with the alien stuff wouldn't really work in a film format.
Also is the 2002 film any good?

>>9416633
Sure is. Tried teaching it to a mixed undergrad class, they all bitched about it being "too dense" and "too descriptive," the fucking plebs

>>9418312

Make them watch the Tarkovsky movie as punishment

>>9416633
Yep! Definitely one of my favourite Sci-Fi.

>>9416633

Solaris is great. Make sure you get the good translation.

>>9419647
What is the good translation?

>>9419669

I think the Bill Johnston one is the one I read. It was good.

>>9419669
The Polish one