This is almost 3 fucking hours of some idiot trying to cope with

>>79304705
>>>/r/eddit

>>79304705
The Tokyo highway scene is literally a pleb-filter

>>79304705
pretty kino kino. watch with the commentary track if you don't "get it"

People who compare Solaris and 2001 are idiots, the films have nothing in common other than "DUDE, IT'S SET IN SPACE"

>>79304995
For westerners probably.
For people in SU it was bretty ebin.
>More than 10 cars per 1000 people?
>Truly, Tarkovsky has brought us a vision of what the world will look like in year 2100

>>79304705
The Steven Soderbergh remake is much better, not even joking.

File: 0e9.jpg (27KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x600px

>>79305518
>not knowing they're both based on a novel
>not knowing there's 3 Solaris films

>>79305518
Alright, why is it better?

You just need emotional maturity and character, OP. Give it time.

>>79305642
Better pacing and more character driven, it's not 3 hours long.

>End if rant.

>>>/reddit/

>>79305518
You're going to get a lot of flack but I like both

>>79305749
The problem with the original is not only the pacing but also the fact that the sci-fi background is ENTIRELY unnecessary. If this was a movie about a guy who became a shut-in and slowly lost his mind inside his own home because he can't live without his wife, it'd be a much more interesting psychological drama.

>>79305968
>Silent Hill 2

>>79305207
I actually thought it was supposed to be a future where Japan takes over the world.

>>79305968
This is not your average Hollywood blockbuster, the movie is slow paced for a reason, just as 2001 space odyssey. The story ofboth movies could be compressed in 15min or even less, the sci fi elements are the foreground, the story is the background, but both movies are supposed to be metaphors for something deeper

Both movies are deeply philosophical and visually stunning

>>79306676
I disagree. While 2001's pace is just as slow, it keeps itself fresh by dividing itself in four phases so as to better pull in the viewer and keep the aspect of it fresh while Solaris drags along with Kris fawning and depressing over his wife and this mirror image of her and the other 2 characters occasionally making an appearance to try and bring him to reason (despite the fact that that was Kris' purpose from the get-go) and providing tidbits of pretentious information regarding great philosophers and stories such as Faust and Don Quijote. I mean the whole bit about how a happy man never wastes himself pondering the question of our existence was so forced I almost gave up entirely on the entire movie after 2 hours of watching it.

>>79304705
>slow, vapid and pretentious
So like 2001, then?

Doesn't matter, we all know Stalker is Tarkovsky's best film.

File: memories.jpg (195KB, 1280x704px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1280x704px

Best version of Solaris.

Am I the only one who noticed that there are no more "genius" film directors ? Not only in big productions, but everywhere. 30-40 years ago every modern country had its Kubrick, but today everything is just money and cheap fun (yeah there are some really good movies, but it seems that there are no more directors who mix philosophy and art with cinema as there were before)

>>79307623
Yes. It's why I don't watch films past 1980.

File: ohwelles (2017_01_24 05_08_00 UTC).jpg (89KB, 500x617px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 500x617px

>>79304705
>2001 isn't slow, vapid and pretentious piece of garbage

>>79307760
Oh, look at the patrician everyone.

>>79304705
I didn't really get the ending. He came back home, hugged a man, there was a dog and it started raining inside the house. Then he realised his house was on an island in the middle of the alien ocean. What was the meaning of all that?

>>79307231
Stalker > Andrei Rublev > The Mirror > Solaris > Ivan's Childhood

Haven't seen the rest yet

>>79307244
to bad it's only 25 mins long, would loved a 120 min version, but I guess that would be dragging the plot way to thin.

>>79307623
It's QT and Nolan like it or not. And PTA in 10 years.

Also, was Kubrick already considered as a genius while he was alive? I know that Tarkovsky only got his legendary status after he died.

>>79308091
You have no room to talk then.

>>79307231
Stalker isn't even top 5 senpai.

Mirror/Nostalghia > Sacrifice > Andrei Rublev > Stalker >> Solaris >>> Ivan's Childhood

>>79308181
Only the best directors realized how legendary Tarkovsky was. I mean to receive the highest praise from Bergman who was the person every other (at least Hollywood-wise) director looked up to.

>>79308181
>Thinking Nolan is by any stretch of the imagination a modern day Kubrick or Tarkovsky

Please tell me this is bait.
>dude love holds the universe together and
>dude thinking non linerally lets you see the future
aren't deep or very thought provoking ideas in the slightest. No amount of class A cinematography can hide the fact his movies are mostly devoid of any seriously thought provoking or philosophical material unlike the aforementioned directors, he doesn't come anywhere near there level or fill the void they've left in cinema.

>>79304705
>People call this the Russian 2001?
>slow, vapid and pretentious piece of garbage
hmmmmm

>>79308483
Well Nolan is the best "practical effects dude" today, but his movies are usually targeted just for mindless fun

PT Anderson's There will be blood is underappreciated and will probably gain a lot of popularity after he dies

QT = violent ironic bedtime stories

>>79308483
I'm not thinking that Nolan is a genius. I don't like his films. What I meant is that Nolan has a similar reception these days that Kubrick had. Of course Kubrick was a much better director.

>>79308428
Then why did you put it in your top 5?

>>79308644
I actually meant to type 3. My bad.

Was there some symbolic significance behind all the weird shit the pilot was describing in that footage towards the beginning?
Stuff like glassy sludge forming into shapes then eventually a human baby or something

>>79308037
Its implied that he went down to the surface of Solaris instead of going back home. He abandoned reality to be embraced within the protection of his memories and past, physically manifested by Solaris

>>79308725
>symbolic
Tarkovsky doesn't do symbolism fyi.

>>79308747
>>79308752
its remarkable how one person says one thing and another person says another thing

>and you argue with me this movie isn't shit

>>79308673
I didn't think I could count at first.
Stalker > The Mirror > Nostalghia > Andrei Rublev > Sacrifice > Solaris > Ivan's Childhood

>>79308752
There's a famous quote where he tears apart the notion of semiotics in film, insisting that his work only reflects aesthetics. I think he's full of shit on this to an extent, for even if he convinces himself that his choices don't have symbolic context, his films don't exist in a vacuum. He inevitably creates visual cues that are informed by symbolic meaning, and more importantly the audience derives that meaning

>>79308752
I'm a noob when it comes to trve cinema but even I know he does shots of rain, horses, mirrors for some reason. Is this really just for aesthetics and they don't mean anything?

>>79308908
>>79308825
There's clearly a personal symbolism or significance to it all FOR HIM but it doesn't extend to us. We would have to literally be him to understand it in that way. He shows whatever he shows and we're left to figure out any significance behind it all with our own experiences as context.

The symbolism he's referring to is the kind where it's clear what the audience is supposed to infer from it -- in that it only has one singular meaning and doesn't allow the audience to derive anything else from it. THAT is what he despised.

>>79307244
What is this?

>>79309070
Well, anon your first clue is in the image file. Your second clue is in a reverse google image search.

It's Memories.

>>79309110
Or you could just not be an aloof, too-cool-for-school asshole..

>>79309110
Why do anons always do this shit where they post something and then act like a condescending prick if someone asks what it is?
Seriously...

>>79309243
Remarkably, I didn't know what it was until 5 minutes ago, but since this isn't baby's first day on the internet, it didn't take me long to find out. Fuck off.

>>79304705
It's a boring film sure but you're still a pleb for not liking it.

>>79308428
Stalker is better than Nostalghia tho. Nostalgia is Ivan's Childhood tier.

>>79304705
Here's your you.

>>79305968
That wouldn't be at all the same story and it would make it completely philosophically different

You're a fucking idiot

>>79309385
You could not be more wrong. Get get yourself some taste. You are in desperate need of it.

>>79307623
PTA and LvT are pretty genius directors, and even if you don't agree they're considered that

I'd say that Thai guy is also considered up there

>>79309463
Enlighten me further on your opinion instead of calling me a fucking idiot like a 12 year old.

You fucking idiot.

>>79309627
He isn't losing his mind
The point is he makes a conscious decision to stay in a world with a fake wife, despite knowing it isn't 'reality'
Making it about him losing his mind would completely undermine this point

>This is almost 3 fucking hours
stopped reading

>>79305518
I've never watched the remake.

Maybe I should give it a shot.

>>79309730
I see your point. My choice of words wasn't the correct one. Yes, it's true he hasn't lost his mind but just how far gone can he be if he makes a, as you put it, conscious decision to stay in a dream world. Man must face reality, no matter how grim.

>>79304705
I watched the one with George Clooney. Most boring film I've seen along with Her.

>>79309882
See that's your answer to the question Tarkovsky asks whether it matters that he's deluding himself. Does it really matter? If it makes him happy, why not?

I agree with your answer though, he should have gone back home

But also why wouldn't he set it in space? Space is sweet, the props are cool, the antigrav is fun. If it was set on earth with him say taking drugs to stay in a fake world it would just be more boring than Solaris.

>>79310084
I watched Her for the first time last week, I burst out laughing when he found out the OS was cheating on him. I could not take that shit seriously. The movie went from being kinda interesting to fucking stupid really quick.

>>79309577
I've seen more better movies than you'll ever see Tark fanboy.

>>79310132
I couldn't finish it

>>79310132
Why was that fucking stupid?

This is like the good parts of 2001 without the shitty killer robot to appeal to plebs.

>>79310441
Here's your (You)

>>79310399
idk, seeing him get cucked by an OS was just such a ridiculous concept to me. It broke my suspension of disbelief.

>>79307623
Movies aren't allowed to meditate on subjects anymore and a filmed for a modern attention span.

>>79310630
You realize it was because she (and all AI) had grown too complex to be satisfied with interactions with humans, right? You don't actually think it was supposed to be a love story with them getting married or some stupid shit like that...right?

>>79310706
Yeah, I understand the plot of the movie. I understand that it's ultimately a movie about a man coming to grips with his divorce and that his relationship with his OS helps him to finally move past his ex-wife. It's just that when they reveal that his fucking OS is cheating on him I couldn't take it seriously anymore. It seemed like a concept out of a comedy skit desu.

>>79310881
I still don't understand why that was so surprising to you.

>>79310933
I think it was cause I already thought Joaquin Phoenix's character was pathetic to begin with so when it was revealed his character was getting cheated on it elevated him to a level of patheticness that didn't feel real to me.

There's a scene earlier in the movie where he's at Amy Adams office and he's lying on the couch and watching her interact with her OS. It's shot so we're seeing things from his perspective. When I saw that shot I thought he was finally realizing how pathetic it was to be emotionally attached to an OS and was gonna break things off. I guess I just couldn't really connect with the main character, the concept was almost too far fetched for me to begin with and when the cheating was revealed it was like the movie jumped the shark.

>>79311091
Why do you think it was pathetic to have an emotional connection to a sentient OS?

>>79311091
Isolation can lead to a very serious depression and in the case of his character, attachment to the one thing who, quite literally, keeps him from killing himself. Now you can say "oh she just stop being a little bitch". Sometimes, when you don't know how to react to an event, you overreact almost mechanically. In his case, and many others as is apparent by the movies plotline, he began a relationship with his OS. It really is no different nowadays with some people and their abnormal, borderline mental disorder tastes.

>>79311149
Cause forgoing human companionship to become romantically involved with a computer program is pathetic.

>>79311243
Why?

>>79304705
There's nothing more precious than a turboplen furiously firing aimlessly at a movie he cannot grasp. He confuses his stupidity with a dislike for the film he cannot articulate. Notice all the expletives, futile attempts at shot analysis and blanket statements, to cover up the fact that he's unequipped to discuss film.
This sort of amazing retard is why I keep coming here.

>>79311289
Cause there are over 7 billion people on earth, and we're biologically programmed to want to mate/connect with each other. I mean, I get why he dated the OS, he was afraid of getting hurt again after the divorce and the OS felt safe to him, like it was something he could control without having to step outside his comfort zone. I understand the plot of the movie. It's just that once they're in the cabin and the OS introduces him to the OS based of the works of that philosopher and you see where the movie is heading it made me laugh out loud and I couldn't get reinvested in the movie afterwards. Even thinking about those scenes is making me smile as I type this, it just came across as absurd to me. Maybe I'm in the minority when it comes to the movie though.

>>79311316
There's nothing more precious than disregarding the opinions of someone who uses terms like "turbopleb".

I liked it a lot.

>>79311525
Of course you have to disregard those opinions, it's not like you can argue against them.

>>79311467
It's interesting that you find it strange that someone could connect with a non-human intelligence, but then again expect that non-human intelligence to behave like a human.

>>79304705
the remake with george clooney is a lot better. the book is good too.

I liked the book WAY more. There need to be more film adaptations of Stanislaw Lem although it will be very tough considering his themes

>>79311818
Can you summarize the ways the book was better? I'd like to be able to bring up points about the way the book was better in discussions, but reading is really gay and pointless so I don't want to actually read it.

File: 1481683796695.jpg (6KB, 256x192px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 256x192px

>>79311912
>reading is gay

>>79312105
So you at least agree it's pointless? Why should I bother to read a book if a film version exists and I can just google arguments for while the book was better so I can act like I actually read it?

>>79312218
kys. Reading is to cinema what cinema is to a three panel comic strip.

>>79312309
>>>/lit/

>>79311912
The book is much more personal in nature because you can examine Kris' thoughts and dreams and see him trying to make sense of the Ocean. It also gives a much stronger sense of the insanity that has gripped the station as well as the totally unreachable nature of the Ocewn

>>79312407
Thanks. I will say this exactly next time someone asks me if I know anything about Tarkovsky.

>>79312464
I'm not sure why you'd talk about Stanislaw Lem when asked about Tarkovsky but knock yourself out

>>79312499
Because literally no one cares about the original novel? No one would even be vaguely aware of the novel if it weren't for the Tarkovsky adaptation.

>>79312553
if no one cares about the novel why would you talk about it?

>>79312616
To seem superior if anyone brought up the film.

>>79312673
But no one would care

>>79305641
>not knowing they're both based on a novel

Not really. None of the so-called "adaptations" have anything to do with the novel.

>>79311818
>>79311912
>>79312218
>>79312407

The novel and the movie "adaptations" have nothing to do with each other apart from the title. The novel is science fiction.

>>79313156
Reading is gay. Will watching the movies make me gay?

>>79304705
>slow, vapid and pretentious piece of garbage
not gonna lie, 2001 is pretty damn slow vapid and pretentious

and it becomes a complete piece of garbage in the last half hour

>>79304705
>slow, vapid and pretentious piece of garbage
so exactly like 2001? also Lars von Trier takes inspiration from Tark.

>>79313156
Nothing to do except the characters, the setting and the plot?

>>79313468
Nope. They only share the title in common.

>>79313608
you couldn't be more wrong but since all the information you need is available on the Internet I can only assume you're fishing for (You)s