Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

'Solaris' Screen Adaptation Forthcoming 185

Posted by Hemos from the shine-on-your-bright-sun dept.
Jooly Rodney writes "No, not the operating system, the sci-fi novel by Stanislaw Lem, long considered to be a classic of the genre. Apple's movie trailer site features a teaser trailer, and IMDb has George Clooney and Natascha McElhone as the leads Kelvin and Rheya."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Solaris' Screen Adaptation Forthcoming More

'Solaris' Screen Adaptation Forthcoming

Comments Filter:
  • ..never be as good as the original "solaris"

    • Re:it will... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Lemmy Caution ( 8378 )
      It may be better. Tarkovsky himself was not fond of his own version of the film - he made it in order to get funding for his other films. Stalker is a better film.

      In light of Soderburgh's career, Solaris, with its anxious, looming regret for the failures of relationships past and poignant sense of human limitation, is an ideal film for him.

      • well, its just that we non americans(pardon if you'r not american), or non hollywood in general. have had it with american remakes of exellent films , and c'mon cloney ?
        • ``we non americans(pardon if you'r not american), or non hollywood in general. have had it with american remakes of exellent films''

          Well... count at least one American who's sick and tired of it, too.

          ``Welcome to American Megastudios, new employees! Did you remember to check your creativity with the security guard on your way in?''

    • The book has scenes of unearthly beauty which did not appear in the original Russian movie. For instance: the vast, wonderful, possibly sentient structures that grew on Solaris. These (a major plot element in the book) did not appear in the 1972 movie--a real disappointment.

      Hope the new movie does better.

    • Re:it will... (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      But... but... how can you improve upon reading source code? Solaris is just a bad knock-off of that reading of the Linux source over the radio... It may be more dramatic than the original, but it's still pretty boring. The comments are the only interesting thing in the whole movie! Give me VAX Wars any day...

      In AD 2101 source code was beginning...

  • Trailer showing before Minority Report (Score:3, Informative)

    by Greyjack ( 24290 ) on Sunday June 23, 2002 @08:57AM (#3752240) Homepage
    They're running the trailer before showings of Minority Report (at least, they were yesterday at the matinee I went to). Only names mentioned in the trailer were James Cameron, Steven Soderbergh, and George Clooney.

    Needless to say, those three names along with some beautiful deep-space type footage definitely piqued my interest.

  • Another one? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dazed-n-confused ( 140724 ) on Sunday June 23, 2002 @08:59AM (#3752242)
    Andrei Tarkovsky's Russian adaptation of Solaris [imdb.com] (1972) was the first, of course, and is widely regarded as a sci-fi classic. Let's hope this isn't another unnecessary Hollywood remake.

    • Re:Another one? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Allen Varney ( 449382 ) on Sunday June 23, 2002 @09:24AM (#3752303) Homepage

      Andrei Tarkovsky's Russian adaptation of Solaris (1972) was the first, of course, and is widely regarded as a sci-fi classic.

      ...by those who haven't seen it. Most desperately, petrifyingly boring film I've ever seen. The movie spends ten or fifteen minutes just showing a guy driving home. Just driving. You think I'm exaggerating.

      This being a Russian film, everybody's character arc takes them from depressed to depressed, visiting many states of depression in between. On a spaceship that somehow manages to look like a spare bedroom, the artificial gravity gets temporarily turned off, and we see a depressed couple floating mournfully in mid-air, while seated in chairs.

      Four hours of my life I'll never get back.

      • Agreed. Terrible movie.
        I kept waiting for something--anything--to happen.
        By the time something does, you just don't care any more due to exhaustion.

        They owe me four hours too.

        Cheers,
        -b
      • I love the scene of him driving, and the sound that goes with it. Another great Tarkovsky film, Stalker, has a similar scene that goes on for minutes, except it shows three men riding on a train car. Awesome. Some of us like movies that aren't all action, and let the scenes slowly sink in.
      • It wasn't particularly light hearted either. I have read the book and seen the movie, and the movie catches the mood of the book perfectly.

        I agree that it will have to be dumped down a lot to reach to Hollywood idea of a sci-fi audience, i.e. the people who think _The Matrix_ was a "deep" movie.
      • I have to agree with this one. One of the most dreadfully wreched movies of all time. I admit that I did have fantasies about a "modern" remake, but the fact that it has George Clooney in it kind of scares me. What if they pull a "Starship Troopers" on it? I mean, isn't the whole concept of the story a bit too much for Hollywood to handle?
    • I saw this in college. It was hillarious. We were biting out hands to keep from laughing out loud. Highlights include: randomly switching between black & white and color (in Russia, they used what stock was available), a midget trying to escape from a room, and the otherwise mentioned 15 minute driving scene (which would be a good time to get popcorn if it weren't so early in the movie).

      • Re:Another one? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Huge Pi Removal ( 188591 ) <oliver+slashdot@watershed.co.uk> on Sunday June 23, 2002 @12:38PM (#3752803) Homepage
        I know Tarkovsky isn't to *everyone's* tastes, but he had some amazing techniques. Highlights include:

        * Very long shots (as in, not the fast cutting you get these days where the average shot length is about 3 seconds). It really adds to the mood of the film, makes you feel like you're part of it.

        * The driving scene builds from being a road with a few cars to an immense cacophony of noise, light, etc. It definitely has a point.

        * A lot of highly thought-provoking dialogue (something that's rather lacking in most films).

        * His autobiography is called "Sculpting in Time", which ought to give you some idea of what he's trying to *do* with his films.

        And to answer the poster below, maybe Lem didn't like the film, but I bet he wouldn't like some brash American remake either. I'm sorry, but at least Tarkovsky turned the novel (or ideas contained therein) into something worth watching and learning from, rather than a sloppy piece of entertainment-action.

        'spose I'd better stop ranting now...

        • Re:Another one? (Score:3, Informative)

          by j_hirny ( 305473 )

          "And to answer the poster below, maybe Lem didn't like the film, but I bet he wouldn't like some brash American remake either. I'm sorry, but at least Tarkovsky turned the novel (or ideas contained therein) into something worth watching and learning from, rather than a sloppy piece of entertainment-action."

          Well, he actually ignores it. As it is written here [lem.onet.pl]:

          Interviewer: This (new "Solaris") movie is going to be produced by James Cameron, the director of "Titanic".

          Lem: I don't know, although it's quite possible that Cameron will make it. You know, I don't care about it a lot. The more the Americans are engaged in any project, the less the author has to say. Still, the idea that now some forty scriptwriters work over my novel doesn't bring me a lot of satisfaction. For the time being I am not even allowed to look into the scenario. But I wouldn't like to do it, as I am afraid that after reading it I'd be really angry. Also, what can you find interesting:

          I: Solaris by Tarkowski is the most famous adaptation of any of your novels, although it's quite far from the original novel. Philosophical debates became more stressed than the dialogue between astronauts and the ocean.

          Lem: Situation is very delicate. Although I have a lot of respect for Tarkowski's movies I hate this one. I tried to presuade Tarkowski from his odd ideas for exactly six weeks. The scenario missed the novel too much. Tarkowski created Kelvin's family, he added some terrible aunts and uncles, which were removed after my rant.

          Hope it helps. And feel free to correct my English. ;)

          • Very interesting. Although seeing as IMDb has Steven Soderbergh as the director, I presume this is an oldish interview.

            Personally, I forgive Tarkowsky for introducing the dying father for the single reason of the last, heart-rending shot of the house with the rain on the inside.

            Hmmm. I saw Stalker again the other day. He likes his rain, that Tarkowsky... :)
      • The best were the endless views of a Soviet piece of shit car driving on highway overpasses with dubbed "jet-engine" sounds. The first half of the movie was nothing but the car driving.

        The movie was completely stupid. That said, the very end was pretty cool. When, he's in the house and its raining indoors, then you realize he's still on the island.

    • Re:Another one? Driving sequence (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's not just driving, it's driving through endless maze of gray concrete multilevel freeway interchanges and ramps filmed in Germany. This kind of stuff was seen by his audience of 1972's USSR as something alien. It expresses an anti-utopian view of future technology.

    • Re:Another one? (Score:2, Informative)

      by roman_mir ( 125474 )
      Classic you say? Do you know that Stanislav Lem himself was sick from that movie? Basically he wrote a book about incredible wonders that can be found in the universe and how interesting it must be to go and search for such things. In the Russian movie (I saw it a few times back in USSR) the director is trying to display how horrible and scary it is to go to space. Basically that was the main problem with the movie, except, of-course for the very slow style and very basic setup.
    • Paul Anderson's (Mortal Kombat) Event Horizon [imdb.com] (1997) was a loose remake Solaris.

      I'm in the minority that I liked Event Horizon. Still with Hollywood now making an adaptation of Red Dragon when Manhunter was a perfectly good film, you have to wonder what the memory span of film producers are.

      • I saw Event Horizon in Paramount Studio Preview Screening, and the movie was completely different to what was released to the public, so much stuff was cut off that I couldn't even recognize it.
  • Solaris has already been made into a movie by famed director Andrei Tarkovsky (Russian) in 1972. Here is the IMDB entry [imdb.com].
    The Solaris mission has established a base on a planet that appears to host some kind of intelligence, but the details are hazy and very secret. After the mysterious demise of one of the three scientists on the base, the main character is sent out to replace him. He finds the station run-down and the two remaining scientists cold and secretive. When he also encounters his wife who has been dead for seven years, he begins to appreciate the baffling nature of the alien intelligence.
  • I believe there already was a movie called Solaris and this is just a remake. The imdb confirms [imdb.com] the existence of a 1972 Russian space epic by the great Tarkovsky.

  • Question (Score:2, Informative)

    by theRhinoceros ( 201323 )
    I saw the trailer last night waiting for "Minority Report" to start. To call this a trailer is a bit of an overstatement, it's just a slow pull-out shot starting from some oddly mixing waves(?) on the surface of a star/planet going all the way out until a rotating spacecraft (reminiscent of the space station in 2001) comes into frame. Then it informs you that George Clooney stars. That's it. Not very informative at all.

    This may seem like a dumb question in retrospect, but the CGI was not the best I had ever seen, which leads me to this query: is this an animated film of some sort? I haven't seen any information on any of the usual sites I read about this movie.

  • Aw man! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rhinobird ( 151521 ) on Sunday June 23, 2002 @09:01AM (#3752253) Homepage
    I was looking forward to a movie based on an operating system...
    • You think you're dissapointed. I was looking forward to a movie based on one on my favorite Atari 2600 games [atariage.com].

      Ah well back to hoping someone turns Combat [atariage.com] in to a movie.

    • There are two kinds of Solaris...

      There is the huge, bloated, planet-sized globular mass which drives insane anyone who comes in contact with it...

      And there's the kind from the movie.
    • I was looking forward to a movie based on an operating system...

      Nah... It'd be a flop. Sun Solaris the movie - opens up with the hapless protagonist flipping the install CD in a junked machine he got for a song at the auction.

      2 and a half hours later the movie ends when our hero dies of a caffine overdose just as the machine declares '25% complete!'

    • Re:Aw man! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Sunday June 23, 2002 @11:15AM (#3752589) Homepage
      I was looking forward to a movie based on an operating system...

      I hereby declare open season on "Microsoft Windows - the movie" jokes!

      After the previews - the screen turns blue.

      You go to your local 12 screen megaplex and Windows is playing on all 12.

      Any time anyone enters or leaves the theater they have to restart the movie.

      You have to show a valid passport to enter the theater.
      Your passport serial number is used as a permanent tracking number.

      The MPAA initially rates it as "unsuitable for general audiences", but becomes strangely cooperative after having lunch with Microsoft's laywers.

      It requires projectors with a proprietary variable frame rate technology.

      The admission is $120 and includes a free Microsoft popcorn, free Microsoft Cola, and a free Microsoft CD player (incompatible format with DRM).

      30 minutes of the footage will have to be patched the day it's released.

      There will be a sequel every 2 years.
      Episode 3.0 will be the first one to hit theaters. Unlike Star Wars, you really really don't want to see the prequels.

      It won't appear free on TV a few years later.

      The soundtrack will feature the songs "Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers" and "Monkey Dance" preformed by Steve Ballmer.

      The commercial for Windows with mention that Penguins may carry rabies and Apples may cause food poisoning.

      Six slashdot readers (always the same six) will post here saying they LIKE the movie, and all the negative reviews are unfair Microsoft bashing.

      You call movie phone (777-FILM) and discover the greeting has changed to "Welcome to Microsoft's Moviephone..."

      When they deliver the film to the theater they will install new security doors. A week later a major newspaper will run a story saying that back doors are unlocked on all the theaters. Microsoft will blame the reporter. As a fix, Microsoft sends "Exit only" stickers for the back doors. 3 days later there's an article about a buffer overflow in the popcorn machine. 2 days later they find a buffer overflow in the restroom.

      A talking paperclip will appear in the corner of the screen and say "It looks like you're watching a movie!"

      -
  • If ever there were a book that would be completely lost in the translation (to screen), this is the one.
    • Alas, you're quite right. If they make it into an action movie, the book's intellectual paylod will vanish. If they try to deliver the payload, it will be a box-office flop.

      ...while so many of Lem's novels just scream to be put to the screen: The Invincible (battling the aliens, with a huge twist), Eden, The Futurological Congress (The Matrix, done right), The Chain of Chance (could be made into an interestingly subversive take on terrorism), His Master's Voice (a bit like Contact, but without more far-out and the sappy conclusion), Fiasco (battling the aliens, with no idea who or what or why we're battling - sounds familiar?), Peace on Earth (incisive political comedy)... and these are just the novels whose English titles I don't have to look up.

  • One of the most difficult movies ever (Score:4, Insightful)

    by z7209 ( 305927 ) on Sunday June 23, 2002 @09:13AM (#3752272)
    I've seen Solaris a couple of times in the past. The original is in Russian. Not knocking it, but it is one of the most difficult movies I've ever seen. It is inspiring you to get drawn in, but it is very perplexing. On the face of it the story is simple, but it is multi-layered.

    It is also perhaps the most non-Hollywood movie ever made, so you might as well assume right now that Cameron, Steven, and George are not capable of remaking as complex.
    • You're darned right. I've seen it a couple of times and frankly it makes 2001 look like a shallow no-brainer of a movie. Still, perhaps the Hollywood version could explain the Russian one, and then I can watch the Russian one again and at least have half a clue as to what's going on! :)
    • I agree. My wife (from Belarus) really likes it, but my Russian isn't good enough to really understand. She says that it's not about the sci-fi, it's about this higher intelligence in the ocean teaching people about how to really love each other, and that the links between people are the most important thing in the world.

      I have it on laserdisc (damned expensive on ebay!) but so far have only watched it once.

      My wife on the other hand thinks 2001: A Space Odyssey is the most difficult film she's ever seen.

      I can imagine the American version of Solaris will be totally different; I just hope it's not as bad as that godawful Time Machine release. The old Time Machine was sooo much better in sticking to the story, even if the morlocks did look like ordinary humans with bad makeup.
  • should be interesting to compare to tarkovsky's version. hollywood is probably going to ruin this one too...

    QED

  • Another classic ruined by Hollywood? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Ok, so flame me.
    But I can't really say that I liked Solyaris all
    that much.. Not Tarkovski's best at all.
    Seems to me he was trying to hard to make a new 2001.

    But the grace of 2001 is missing in Solyaris; There's a lot of pseudophilosophical babble in the
    dialouge that I doubt anyone can follow, and some
    of the visuals are so wierd they're comical.

    The story and underlying questions are interesting though:
    maybe a dumbed-down hollywood version is just what this film needs?

  • Horrible travisty (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jpatters ( 883 ) on Sunday June 23, 2002 @09:15AM (#3752278)
    Horrible travisty to remake such a great picture that so few have the opportunity to see. They should restore the original and release *it* to theaters. That being said, at least Clooney is a decent actor, unlike Mark Wahlberg who got tapped to fill the shoes of Carey Grant in the remake of Charade. I would also like to take this opportunity to recommend that folks go out and get the DVD of the original Norwegian version of Insomnia, instead of seeing the remake. Damn remakes.
    • Gah! Leave Charade alone you bastards!
      • Gah! Leave Charade alone you bastards!

        There is good news, though. The original Charade has lapsed into the public domain, which means I can run it three nights a week on public access TV while the remake is playing in theaters. Bwahahahaha!

  • 'Solaris' Screen Adaptation Forthcoming (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 23, 2002 @09:16AM (#3752282)
    There's a fan site re both "Solaris" movies:
    http://www.k26.com/solaris/
  • HSX ticker SOLAR [hsx.com]
  • ...will it be released for the x86?

  • ...are unfortunately very high. Allow me to snip the IMDB summary:

    Upon arrival at the space station orbiting an ocean world called Solaris a psychologist discovers that the commander of an expedition to the planet has died mysteriously. Other strange events soon start happening as well, such as the appearance of old acquaintances of the crew, including some who are dead.

    Now, I realize that the IMDB is not official, nor is the wording of the summary official, but I think the wording perfectly captures the level of detail that Hollywood is going to achieve with this remake. Odd planet! Mystery! Death! Romance! Killer CGI! Blah. It's like a chocolate bar left in the sun--it's chocolate, so it could have been good once, but now its just an oozing mess that should be dumped in the garbage.

    Yes, I am being overly pessimistic, but since when has Hollywood let me down? The last decent hard science-fiction movie was Gattacca, and not everyone agrees on that. (Please note I make a distinction between science-fiction and sci-fi.) And George Clooney? Mr. I-Can't-Act-My-Way-Out-Of-A-Paper-Bag? Sorry, folks, nothing to see here.

    :Peter
    • It's like a chocolate bar left in the sun--it's chocolate, so it could have been good once, but now its just an oozing mess that should be dumped in the garbage.

      All you have to do is install a camera which films the thing melting, calling it a "making-of" and run it all over the TV channels for some time. Add "win molten chocolate bar midnight premiere tickets" trivia games and start to sell small replica of the wrapping together with McDonald's Happy Meal.

      Gonna become the best chocolate there ever was, I promise you, although some know-it-all purists might argue that the original was better, after all they have seen and tasted it, but who cares for or listens to them anyway.
  • I saw Minority Report yestereday and they showed the teaser trailer for Solaris before that movie. Imagine two sysadmins of Sun machines sitting there seeing that and freaking out ("AAHH, we can't escape!"). Fortunately, I read the book and saw the russian made movie and quickly relayed what it was to my friend.

    Btw, Minority Report is the most fun "tech" movie I've seen in a long time. It's worth seeing just for all the future gadgetry ideas.
  • I have very little faith that a large American studio can do any justice whatsoever to such a low-key, non action, non "Hollywood ending" vehicle.

    That said, here is the IMDB entry. [imdb.com] Which lists it as in production with Steve Soderbegh [imdb.com] as director. He is responsible for Sex, Lies and Videotape, The Limey, Erin Brokovich, Traffic, and Oceans Eleven. So, it is possible he might do something worthwhile with the material. Depends on what the studio lets him get away with.

  • Lem's Site (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Stanislav Lem's Web site [cyberiad.info] also mentions this forthcoming event unequivocally calling it a remake. Here is what the site says about the original motion picture by Andrew Tarkovsky:
    The first film based on Lem's "Solaris" was produced in 1972 by the legendary Russian film director Vladimir Tarkovsky. However the task of filming Lem's great vision turned out to be a serious problem - and not only an artistic challenge. Communist authorities demanded numerous changes of the original screenplay that drastically distorted the plot and even disturbed the internal structure of the film. Nevertheless the film was awarded the special Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival and was described as "the most intelligent and insightful film in the history of science fiction movies".
  • Than the original film version which has to be one of the five worst films ever made along with Titanic, FotR (mostly in disapointment levels), Highlander 2, and... er. No, actually, I think Solaris must be one of the four worst films ever made because I can't think of four that are at least as bad.

    TWW

    • I liked FoTR. You can replace that with "The Mummy".


      • The Mummy was alright if you realize that it wasn't actually supposed to be a serious Indiana Jones type movie. You can replace that with The Mummy Returns, since no movie like The Mummy should ever have a sequel.

    • I know that opinions are opinions and all that, but when your opinion is this far out of line with the conventional wisdom, have you ever stopped to think that you might just be wrong? Titanic and Fellowship of the Ring aren't the greatest films ever made, but they're actually very good, and I think you're making a mistake if you fail to give credit where it's due.

      And Solaris is, in my opinion, one of the best science fiction films ever made. I think of it as a perfect counterpoint to 2001. Take an afternoon sometime and watch both films back to back. I think you'll gain some insight from the way each film treats the theme of what it means to be human when faced with the incomprehensibility of the universe.
      • Titanic: No story, no acting and an insult to both the intelligence and the event it claimed to be based on.

        FotR: total turkey, particularly as an adaptation. Lowlights include: No character development for Frodo at all, Break-dancing wizards, Being rescued by the Balrog, Balancing huge stone pillars by leaning from side to side, Continuity errors, Miscasting of Boromer and Aragon, The Shire's dancing mountains, the Keystone Nazgul (warning: highly inflamable), total waste of Loth Lorien (why have development when you can get on to the next fight scene?), and on top of that it had the nerve to steal material from the Bakshi version which wasn't in the book after badmouthing Bakshi's efforts.

        Solaris: Tried three times now to watch it. Nothing happens and it takes a long time to not happen. Very, very dire.

        2001: Very good, especially if you cut 5 mins out of the "flying across coloured landscapes" sequence near the end.

        I think you'll gain some insight from the way each film treats the theme of what it means to be human when faced with the incomprehensibility of the universe.

        Solaris gave me some insight into what it means to have a human mind with no stimulus.

        TWW

  • This is a remake of another film (Score:4, Funny)

    by DavidBrown ( 177261 ) on Sunday June 23, 2002 @10:13AM (#3752419) Journal
    Just having watched the trailer, and having read the description of the original Russian film from imdb.com, I can only conclude that the new Solaris is a remake of:

    Ren & Stimpy: Space Madness

    My bet is that George Clooney plays Stimpy.

  • is at the Apple trailer site. What the trailer shows looks interesting. The environment seems somewhat reminise of the original Batman. Looking forward to it.
  • Man, I've been waiting for screen [gnu.org] to get adapted to Solaris for years.

    I got used to it during my shell-term AT&T Unix(tm) days. It made true multilple-session work possible. I was absolutely astounded as my PPP session was running under Windows 3.1.

    It was amazing to have this true multitasking capability back in 1992 -- and you didn't have to use [cs.tut.fi] a mouse!

  • I watched the Russian adaption of Solaris a number of years ago, though I haven't read the novel. To be honest, I do not remember a lot of details from the movie. But here are some highlights and impressions:

    • Space monkeys
    • Midgets
    • Rather philosophical dialogue which hinted at revealing something of immense proportions, but at certain turns could seem like the rantings of a schizophrenic.

    It was a wonderfully puzzling movie. The only US movie I can actually think of that puzzled me as much after seeing it for the first time was 2001. To me, the differences between the movies come down to 2001 attempting philosophy in a purely *visual* medium, whereas I had the impression that Solaris would have been better as a book, being a very verbal exploration of ideas (a symptom of being a film adaption of a novel).

    Can someone who has read the novel and watched the Russian film adaption comment on how the novel and the film compare?

    • The novel is somewhat quicker-moving, although it may well be Lem's most somber piece. It was the first of Lem's writings that I'd read, and I was surprised to find out how humourous and warm his writing often was. (Lem is pretty much my favorite science-fiction writer, along with Samuel Delaney, at this point.) I think Soderbergh can do the novel justice - probably better than Tarkovsky could
  • "Rheya" is named "Harey" in the novel & in Tarkovskiy's Russian-language 1972 adaptation. It might seem a bad omen; if they alter characters' names to better suit the English audience, they probably alter plot & mood too, just to better suit the Hollywood audience.

    If I can actually consider this one better than the original movie or at least an adequate rendering of the book, I'm giving out a free beer to anyone asking me for one on release day.

    • Maybe they changed it for the Russian audience.
    • Changing the name "Harey" for an American film is a no-brainer. A female character named "Harey," to an English-speaking audience, is too snicker-worthy. It would detract from the film.

      Pay careful attention to the use of names in the film. "Rheya" is Rhea, one of the Titans of Greek mythology. The name of the space station in the Soderberg version is Prometheus. Soderberg is doing some very deliberate things with names in his screenplay. I'm eager to see whether these layers of meaning play out on the screen the way they do on paper.
      • Calling her "Rheya" because of the Titan is even less in the spirit of the source. Harey/Rheya is supposed to appear vulnerable and fragile, sort of; after all, she's supposed to have committed suicide because Kelvin rejects her. (In the novel, she's not really fragile later on, but that's mainly because she is no human being, but a copy generated by the Solaris ocean).

        The Prometheus reference is from the novel, too - a spaceship is named that way, so Soderberg is not even very creative about it. Rhea and Prometheus have absolutely nothing to do with each other in Greek mythology (he probably just considers himself educated and the names classic and Old World-ish). My hypothesis is that the only reason for "Rheya" is that it's an anagram of "Harey".

        Please be so kind as to specify what "layers of meaning" you are talking about and how Soderberg is supposed to have been clever about it. At present, you've just given some explanations where some names might come from in Greek mythology, but you've been utterly silent as to what they mean.

        • Please be so kind as to specify what "layers of meaning" you are talking about and how Soderberg is supposed to have been clever about it. At present, you've just given some explanations where some names might come from in Greek mythology, but you've been utterly silent as to what they mean.

          I don't want to talk about any of that stuff until after the movie comes out. Watch it and judge for yourself. We'll have all the time in the world to discuss symbolism after you've seen it.
    • Gee, my English translation of Solaris (Berkley Medallion, Faber and Faber, Ltd translation, (c) 1970) uses the name "Rheya".

      So this isn't just a Hollywood/MPAA conspiracy, but a multinational cabal of English speaking masterminds intent on suppressing the Polish language.
  • Maybe Stalker is up for remake as well?
  • First Insomnia, now Solaris? What's next, Jerry Bruckheimer remaking October?
  • Tarkovsky's original "Solaris" had one of the most beautiful paces I've ever seen in a film. It was slow and it allowed you to take in everything in the film. It created an incredible tension in the film and was largely responsible for the perfect mood that was established.

    My question is, will a typical North American audience (who generally seem to enjoy fast-paced, thoughless films) be able to sit through a film with a pace that slow? I think Soderbergh will be forced to step up the pace and potentially damage the story. Don't get me wrong, I respect Soderbergh as a director, I think he's great. But, I hope he has some kind of creative vision that he'll stick with.
  • Damn! I thought finally that they were going to make a movie about the operating system.

    "Our hero /dev/null must go on a quest to vanquish the rogue daemons and a few zombie processes of the land of Sol and free the paniced "Kernel dev Mod" from the havoc caused by his embarasing problem with leaky memory."

    Throw a few cute magical anime hero girls in there and I think Solaris would be a real hit! :)

  • Eye oWn SOLARIS :) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Sunday June 23, 2002 @11:50AM (#3752659) Homepage Journal
    It is actually my license plate BECAUSE of the book and an intended double pun! Good lord, people on the streets have being asking me if my name is Solaris :) One guy asked me if I was Sun's owner :) My answer to those is: -"Solaris" is Greek for "sunny" and I drive a convertible. Get it?

    Sometimes I am left to wonder who the hell surrounds me here in Canada.

    check out my sig:
  • Wow. look at the moderation on this story.

    ("I'm so very SORRY!"
    Whap!)
    -b
  • I see this as an opportunity for people who haven't heard about the original novel/movie to watch it and judge for themselves afterward. It will also bring the first adaptation into the media spot, then remastered and re-released for DVDs. I am not being too pessimistic here by assuming that people who like old fart Hollywood style jokes wouldn't have bothered seeing the original play anyway, which is why I refrain complaining about Hollywood stomping and destroying every possible piece of achievement from the past. Thanks to George "worse director ever" Lucas and others (Spielberg who is the little fav guy of Wired lately), Kurosawa's movies are now available in Criterion DVDs. Hollywood is a terrific marketing machine. The idea is keeping your brain at a resonnable distance from its grinders. Like avoiding fast food, because ads fly in your face every day, it requires extra strenght, I agree, but the reward is up to the challenge.

    PPA, the girl next door (who has proudly been watching Solaris on 4 different continents and has never eat a big mac.)
  • We'll finally bring all those teletype using solaris savages into the 21st century.

    ;)
  • ..."FreeBSD" and "Linux" to come out:

    "There are just some places man was never meant to go..."

    FreeBSD: a background of flames with the Berkeley Daemon flying past. Random traditionally demonic figures fading in and out of the flames, all with the face of Bill Gates.

    Linux: a bunch of penguins nudging each other at the edge of an ice cliff. As we fly past, we see sharks in the water, all with Bill Gates' face on them.
  • Because if the MPAA or any major Hollywood studio was involved people would all have to boycott the film. Assuming, of course, those folks on /. complaining about Jack "I worry about the future" Valenti and the DRM death rays have the balls to stand behind their ideals.

    Minority Report looks like it might be good. Same with Spider-man. Solaris will probably be good, too. But fuck 'em. Me and my money are staying home until the MPAA changes its tune.

  • So this means that, what, Solaris is gonna run GNOME by default?
  • (in the not being any good sense - who knows what business it will do)

    The book's main protagonist is racked with guilt at leaving his girlfriend, knowing that if he did she'd try to kill herself. This is not only his emotional motivation, but informs his interaction with the planet, and is pretty impossible to remove without gutting the book.

    George Clooney (or any major star) will NEVER be responsible for their girlfriend commiting suicide (on film anyway).

    Therefore, there *will* be helicopter chases through decaying symmetriads, he *will* get it on with neutron girl, and there *will* be some kind of bad guy, no doubt a religious nutter trying to destroy the planet with a giant X-ray emitter.
    • Your post got me to thinking. I think we can all agree that 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the best scifi films ever, but how many people think that there can ever be a film made like it again, ever, at least in Hollywood.

      Sadly, 90% of the movie watching public expect the things you say, helicopter chases, plenty of sex, lots of violence, a solidly bad guy and a solidly good guy. Without lots of sex, violence, action or comedy films just won't sell in the market - 2001 had none of that but it's regarded as one of the best (scifi) films.

      I think we are destined to never see another 2001, it just can't happen, not until that 90% of the population becomes educated.
  • Somewhat off topic, I apologize in advance... Following various Lem links just now, I read some description of one of his stories, His Master's Voice, which were not what I expected. I thought His Master's Voice was a story about genetically intelligent dogs who serve as research assistants for human scientists. In the story I am thinking of, one particularly bright dog spends most of the time piecing together some vital information for his under-appreciative master. If anybody remembers this story I would love to know the title and author.
  • It gives Clooney another chance to belt out A Man of Constant Sorrow.
  • When I hear "Solaris", I think Gatchaman [vacuform.com].

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close