Soderbergh's Solaris

crimsonjackal8... I actually disagree—I don't think Jackson messed up LOTR at all.

Oh, here we go again 😠 Seriously, those two LOTR threads covered everything there is to say.
My final word on The Two Towers: 🙂 🙂

We'll just have to wait and see how Fincher's "Meeting with Ram" or Proyas's "I, Robot" turns out.

What are they even trying to pull? 😢 😢 😢 Man. But hey, we'll see. If it hits at least the level of Minority Report, I'll be happy. You can't really expect miracles from Hollywood.

BTW, I heard Simmons is in talks for a potential Hyperion adaptation. Honestly, I have no clue how they even plan to pull that off 😕

crimsonjackal8 said:By the way, I heard a rumor that Simmons is actually in talks for a potential film adaptation of Hyperion. Honestly, I can't quite wrap my head around how they'd even attempt to pull that off... 😕

Oh, wow—well, that is actually fantastic news! 🙂 ...but it makes me wonder, who on earth would end up directing it? (I just pray to God it isn't P J 🙂 )

Larry Gonzalez11 said:We'll just have to wait and see how David Fincher's "Meeting with Ram" turns out.

...and honestly, this might even be better.
By the way—does anyone happen to have any intel on "Neuromancer"?... Like, when is it happening, what’s the deal, or if it's even still in the works? (I remember hearing somewhere a while back that Chris Cunningham had picked up the project...)

Steven Ruiz said:Anyway, what’s wrong with talking like that? I love using that kind of casual, rural slang... everyone understands me just fine, right?

An acquaintance of mine once studied art with this Frenchman whose English was absolutely terrible. For about six months, all the students lived together in the same building. This guy was definitely eccentric. He used to wear an old-school WWI-style aviator cap. Honestly, he's the reason I ever thought it was cool to show up to a party in long white trousers (without underwear). He also had this habit of riding his bike in circles around a single tree for two hours straight, staring blankly ahead the whole time. Everyone thought he was losing it.
Then, seven days before he splits from the group, he takes off the hat, leaves the bike, and shaves. He told them the whole thing was just a massive prank to see how they'd react.

So, here’s the discussion thread for the movie. We’re talking about Solaris, though we currently only have this one opening post to kick things off. Look, forgive me for playing the cop here, but please, just drop some actual, coherent thoughts about the film itself. I won't start the fire either, mostly because I haven't even seen it yet. But if I had to put money on it, I bet most of you are looking for that sweet spot where you claim it’s way worse than the original—not just a little bit, but significantly—yet still holds enough merit to be considered decent.

So, what's your move? I've already spilled everything there is to say about the movie, George, and aviation. You really don't have anything left to throw at me... 🙂

You’ve always been top-tier, honestly, if you can even call it that. 🙂 But everyone else? Man... 😠

I’ve been following the news about Hyperion too.
But honestly, I’m struggling to wrap my head around a few things:
1. How on earth are they going to squeeze a literal pilgrimage of travelers into a single movie?
2. If they actually intend to adapt the whole saga from start to finish, how many movies are we looking at here?

On another note... I saw some rumors floating around online suggesting that none-other than Leonardo DiCaprio is willing to fund the project and is itching to play Raul Endymion.
GET OUT OF HERE, DI CAPRIO!!!!! :2up:
Is that lazy bum really going to be the one serving Aene??? 🙂

My apologies for veering off on a tangent...

😁 😉 😁 😉 😎 😎

The topic is about my name! 🙏 😲

Just keep going, but maybe dive a little deeper this time

Steven Ruiz: Yeah, maybe the movie didn't hit home for you because you were flying high on aviation adrenaline—your senses were probably just dialed up differently since it's a sci-fi flick.
From what I can tell, you're the only one here who's actually seen it so far. Personally, I’ve got my doubts about the quality. The original was made in the Soviet Union, so it wasn't exactly designed to be a massive cash grab. I haven't read the book, so I don't know if they stuck to every single word, but if the adaptation follows the same logic, it's bound to feel pretty dull to the average American. That sequence showing the tunnel travel—where it gets faster and faster for 4 or 5 minutes before suddenly cutting to peaceful country life—is brilliant. I'm certain a Hollywood version could never pull off something like that.
There's this one detail at the start of the film that feels unplanned, but it fits the whole vibe perfectly... Just as they start showing the film before they begin investigating it, a crow flies in past the window...
Of course, I might be wrong, but the statistics suggesting this film is worse—or significantly worse—than the original definitely back me up.

Whatever works for you, Janica. Personally, I thought the movie was great regardless of what anyone says about the original...
I mean, I'm not going to spend my whole life obsessing over the originals... I already did enough of that over on "The Ring" thread... 😉 😁

By some weird stroke of luck, I managed to binge both versions back-to-back in a pretty short window, starting with the original. Honestly, the Remake is way more faithful to the source material than I was expecting, though there are a few tiny tweaks here and there—mostly things we can probably blame on modern political correctness—plus one of those typical Hollywood twists that doesn't really serve much of a purpose, but hey, whatever, let them have it.
Anyway, I feel like it’s almost mandatory to read the book before diving into either version. Without that context, a ton of stuff just feels blurry, especially with the original, since no movie can ever truly capture everything laid out in the novel, and some of those details might actually be crucial for asking the right questions.
So, here's my take on the similarities and differences, roughly speaking:
The original is basically designed as this deep philosophical and psychological study, which means it throws a million questions at you without giving you any easy answers; it just forces you to sit there and think. It’s an incredibly powerful film. After watching it, I honestly had a giant question mark floating over my head all day, kind of like something out of a comic book. The set design is pretty minimal, too—I guess Tarkovsky probably felt like emphasizing the technology wasn't necessary, which I personally think was the right call.
The Remake, on the other hand, feels more like a practical exercise in film and psychology. Steven Soderbergh tries to answer a few of those questions in a more Westernized way, but he doesn't go overboard; he just deciphers some of the easier pieces of the Solaris puzzle instead of daring to push all the way to the end, which is a smart move, I suppose. The production design is much more pronounced, leaning into that sci-fi atmosphere; while that wasn't a big deal for Tarkovsky, it’s definitely front and center here, maybe just because of the passage of time. In a way, the film feels like an upgrade to the original—you could easily call it Solaris 2.0.
As for the acting, that American guy whose name escapes me is just on a completely different level compared to George Clooney, who is clearly trying his best, but... yeah, not quite there.
To wrap it up: Steven Soderbergh took a brave, unpretentious crack at a mystery that Solaris somewhat robs from the viewer, staying true enough to the original that it’s still digestible for the average person. I think he pulled it off, though judging by the box office numbers, I’m probably wrong about that.
I’d give it a 4+.
Plus, extra points just because of Natascha McElhone!

😁 😁 😁 👍

Forgive my lack of sensitivity toward all those deep philosophical explorations and life-searching dives, but this movie just hit me differently. I haven't seen the original, I haven't read the book, and frankly, I don't plan to.

George isn't built for a role like this, and Natascha McElhone is just completely underwhelming in every sense of the word.

(It’s honestly kind of a bummer that since we finally have this complete list, it was actually pretty easy to track down where we were talking about this movie before, so I figured I’d just bump the thread a bit.)

Philip K. Dick’s incredible story provides such rich soil for all those deep philosophical and metaphysical rabbit holes. It’s perfect fodder for Tarkovsky, but can Soderbergh really handle the heavy lifting? Look, it’s not a bad flick for an American audience, but he just doesn't dive into those same soul-crushing depths that Tarkovsky does (honestly, nobody touches Tarkovsky when it comes to that level of depth). Even though Tarkovsky’s version moves at its own pace, the whole thing is just one constant explosion of ideas, wild visions, and new horizons hitting you in the brain. To me, Soderbergh feels like the "digestible" version of Tarkovsky—which is pretty much confirmed by the runtime, seeing as the new version clocks in at 99 minutes while the original sits at a massive 160.

Still, it isn't half bad. At its core, there’s a lot going on here, but primarily it functions as a love story wrapped in a sci-fi shell. It’s got a vibe somewhere between classic romance and something like Wuthering Heights.

Watching this one again, taking notes on the dialogue, and man, it hits so much harder than the first time around. You don't even need to overthink it when the movie says everything it needs to say; sometimes the meaning just slips through your fingers, so I think sitting with it after the credits roll is a good move (heads up: spoilers ahead!).

The Players:
Chris (played by George Clooney, the doctor sent to fix up the space station in Solaris)
Dr. Gibarian (who ends up taking his own life on the station)
Rhea (the version of Clooney's wife that manifests on Earth)
Snow (a pretty intense character—basically a "visitor" or a cosmic body-snatcher)
Gordon (the female black officer, easily the most level-headed person in the room)

Chatting with "Gibarian"
Chris: You're not Gibarian
Gibarian: No? Who am I then?
Chris: A puppet.
Gibarian: And you're not? Maybe you're my puppet. Like all puppets you actually think you're human. It's the puppet's dream - being human.
Gibarian: There are no answers, only choices.

Rhea and Chris.
Rhea: Don't you see I came from your memory of her. That's the problem. I'm not the whole person. In your memory you get to control everything. So even if you remember something wrong, I am predetermined to carry it out. I'm suicidal because that's how you remember me. My voice sounds the way it does, because that's how you remember it.
Chris: I don't believe that we are predetermined to relive our past. I think that we can choose to do it differently. The day I left you said you wouldn't make it, I didn't hear you because I was angry. This is my chance to undo that mistake and I need you to help me.
Rhea: But am I really Rhea?
Chris: I don't know anymore. All I see is you... All I see is you.
Rhea: We can never have a life on Earth. And this, what kind of life is this? Trapped here, it's not a life. I don't know what to call it.
Chris: It's what we have. It's enough for me.

Rhea's goodbye video:
Rhea: I'm not Rhea. I know you loved me there, I know that, I felt that. And I loved you. I wish that we could live inside that feeling forever. Maybe there is a place where we can, but I know it's not on Earth and it's not on this ship. That's All What i Can say right now.

Snow reveals who he really is.
Snow: He attacked me. There I am, somehow there I am and couldn't tell how I am, who I am, what's going on... I survived the first 30 seconds of this... life... whatever you wanna call it, by killing someone, and oh-ah by killing someone who happens to be me... This is an incredible opportunity... this is a gift, I'm a gift.
Gordon: I say, we use the device on him.
Snow: Can I make a suggestion. You can do what you want, but I would... just lock me in here really tight and take the thing back. Wear your seat-belt 🙂

Chris back on Earth.
Chris: Earth. Even the word sounded strange to me now. Unfamiliar. How Long have i been goniti? How long have I been back? Did it matter? I try to find the rhythm of the world where I used to live. I follow the current. I was silent, intentional. I made the conscious effort to smile, nod, stand. And perform millions of gestures that constitute life on Earth. I studied these gestures until they became reflexes again. But I was haunted by the idea that I remembered it wrong. Somehow I was wrong about everything.

And then he’s slicing a cucumber again, cuts himself once more, but this time—get this—the wound heals instantly. Aha! And then Rhea appears.
Chris: Am I alive or dead?
Rhea: We don't have to think like that anymore. We are together now. Everything we've done is forgiven. Everything.

One last little detail for you. The very first thing Rhea says to the Clooney character, after a long, heavy look, is: "Don't blow it." Just imagine the weight of that when someone tells you something like that in your very first sentence.

Regarding Solaris Tarkovsky (haven't seen Soderbergh's yet)... After a decent enough prologue (which is incredibly thin and hollow considering how long it drags), the movie just falls off a cliff. And it stays there until the credits roll. The ideas are either way too on-the-nose—most of the time—or they're so abstract you wonder if the director even knew what he was trying to say... It’s just one scene after another with zero purpose, just padding out stuff that was already established at the start. The whole thing is basically just a house made of plaster with almost no actual bricks underneath.
Honestly, Tarkovsky the director isn't the problem here—he’s got that Kubrick-esque style—it’s Tarkovsky the screenwriter. It sucks because even those gorgeous shots get exhausting when there's no real reason for them to be there. Such a shame, especially since the ending actually throws out some potentially cool ideas... but by then it's too late. The previous 150 minutes didn't do anything to build up to it.
I have a feeling Soderbergh's might be (slightly) better.

I watched the remake first, and despite (or maybe because of) that slow, methodical, moody "2001: A Space Odyssey" vibe, I actually liked it. It’s not a masterpiece, but it has a coherent structure—beginning, middle, and end—and it’s visually stunning... blah blah blah.
Now, since I have this deep-seated aversion to American remakes, I was really hoping I could tear into George Clooney and "his famous backside" once I finally sat down with the original Solaris.
I wish.
The original version is as tedious as a bout of food poisoning; watching it was honestly painful. It’s packed with unnecessary scenes and lacks the element of surprise found in the remake because everything is laid out immediately (that bit about the ocean being like a "brain"), which makes you wonder why you're even bothering to watch.
(Okay, that doesn't hold up if you've read the book, because then you already know everything anyway.)

I'm done typing...
I'll just sit back and brace myself for the inevitable wave of criticism claiming I'm too dim-witted to grasp the sheer genius of Tarkovsky and his Solaris. 😁

I guess we've pretty much covered everything now.😎

Allow me to contribute my own thoughts to the discussion here. 😁

Frankly, this film desperately needed at least another twenty minutes of runtime to truly breathe. As it stands, I feel a lingering sense of incompleteness—a slight, nagging feeling that certain elements remain somewhat unresolved. That being said, even with that minor grievance, I can confidently assert that it is an exceptionally well-crafted piece of cinema.