On 02/09/2010 09:28, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for being
> "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of sheer
> curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to actually give it
> a try.
>
The movies both the Russian original as well as the new one are boring. But if you like SF, buy the book from Stanislaw Lem. IMO the best SF author and philosopher ever.
bjoern

On 9/2/10 14:01 CDT, Walter Bright wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 09/02/2010 04:47 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>> What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for
>>>> being "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of
>>>> sheer curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to
>>>> actually give it a try.
>>>
>>> I watched the original russian one. It's sci-fi, but it's rather long
>>> and boring. Like there's a long sequence of just the character driving
>>> on the freeway. Driving, driving, driving, ...
>>
>> That was a key scene.
>
> Whoosh. That's either your joke going way over my head, or the scene!

The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and meaning of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which are central themes in the movie.

Andrei

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote in message news:i5ov2v$2c07$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 9/2/10 14:01 CDT, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 09/02/2010 04:47 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>> What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for being "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of sheer curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to actually give it a try.
>>>>
>>>> I watched the original russian one. It's sci-fi, but it's rather long and boring. Like there's a long sequence of just the character driving on the freeway. Driving, driving, driving, ...
>>>
>>> That was a key scene.
>>
>> Whoosh. That's either your joke going way over my head, or the scene!
>
> The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and meaning of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which are central themes in the movie.
>

Sounds like one of those ultra-artsy movies I would probably hate :/

Kinda reminds me of that Robin Williams movie where he was a robot, and the David Bowie movie "The Man Who Fell To Earth". Both seemed to be trying for some sort of artsy profound "meaning", but ultimately came across as pretentious snore-fests.

On 9/2/10 14:55 CDT, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org>  wrote in message
> news:i5ov2v$2c07$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 9/2/10 14:01 CDT, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> On 09/02/2010 04:47 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>>> What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for
>>>>>> being "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of
>>>>>> sheer curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to
>>>>>> actually give it a try.
>>>>>
>>>>> I watched the original russian one. It's sci-fi, but it's rather long
>>>>> and boring. Like there's a long sequence of just the character driving
>>>>> on the freeway. Driving, driving, driving, ...
>>>>
>>>> That was a key scene.
>>>
>>> Whoosh. That's either your joke going way over my head, or the scene!
>>
>> The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a
>> crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and meaning
>> of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which are central
>> themes in the movie.
>>
>
> Sounds like one of those ultra-artsy movies I would probably hate :/
>
> Kinda reminds me of that Robin Williams movie where he was a robot, and the
> David Bowie movie "The Man Who Fell To Earth". Both seemed to be trying for
> some sort of artsy profound "meaning", but ultimately came across as
> pretentious snore-fests.

Difference is, The Bicentennial Man and The Man Who Fell To Earth don't hold a candle to Solaris.

Andrei

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote in message news:i5p06p$2dq9$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 9/2/10 14:55 CDT, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org>  wrote in message news:i5ov2v$2c07$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>> The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a
>>> crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and meaning
>>> of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which are
>>> central
>>> themes in the movie.
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like one of those ultra-artsy movies I would probably hate :/
>>
>> Kinda reminds me of that Robin Williams movie where he was a robot, and
>> the
>> David Bowie movie "The Man Who Fell To Earth". Both seemed to be trying
>> for
>> some sort of artsy profound "meaning", but ultimately came across as
>> pretentious snore-fests.
>
> Difference is, The Bicentennial Man and The Man Who Fell To Earth don't hold a candle to Solaris.
>

Well that's good to hear then. Although in the case of The Man Who Fell To Earth, I got the impression that even really artsy-film fans probably wouldn't have liked it either. Even for what it was trying to be, it didn't seem very well done.

BLS:
> But if you like SF, buy the book from Stanislaw Lem. IMO the best SF author and philosopher ever.

The SF author I like most is Greg Egan.
Any group of ten of his short stories contain more ideas than the whole career of an average SF author :-)

Bye,
bearophile

On 09/02/2010 11:07 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

>
> Difference is, The Bicentennial Man and The Man Who Fell To Earth don't
> hold a candle to Solaris.
>

Interestingly, Lem didn't like the movie at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_%281972_film%29#Reception_and_legacy

On 9/2/10 15:31 CDT, Max Samukha wrote:
> On 09/02/2010 11:07 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>>
>> Difference is, The Bicentennial Man and The Man Who Fell To Earth don't
>> hold a candle to Solaris.
>>
>
> Interestingly, Lem didn't like the movie at all:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_%281972_film%29#Reception_and_legacy

Yah, and Tarkovsky didn't care much for the book either!

Andrei

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:47:01 +0300, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for being "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of sheer curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to actually give it a try.
>
> I watched the original russian one. It's sci-fi, but it's rather long and boring. Like there's a long sequence of just the character driving on the freeway. Driving, driving, driving, ...

All the movies of him i have seen is like that, but he knows well how to strike, deadly.
You should give Nostalghia a try, especially one scene that involves (don't want to spoil it but) a candle.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and meaning of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which are central themes in the movie.

This sounds more like an after the fact rationalization!