Talk:Solaris (2002 film)

Remake?

I'd like it very much if we could avoid saying that this is a remake, or at least reach consensus so we don't have to go back and forth.

It's a film version of the book. The Soderburgh film differs from the book, but it goes its own way rather than mimicing the choices that Tarkovsky made. As for "distinct facial resemblances," I don't really see it. And that hardly qualifies as "a great debt." Certainly Tarkovsky's film is a classic and undoubtedly influenced Soderburgh - but that doesn't mean it's a remake. Staecker 21:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Great debt?

I don't really see the signifigance in this either. It's in this article and in the 1972 version's article. How is questionable facial similarities "a great debt"? and explain how saying it is a great debt is not based on opinion. An opinion on how people look alike could not really be used to justify saying the movie was influenced by the original.--Skeev 19:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping someone else would have mentioned this. I'm removing the section concerning 'debt' and facial resemblances because it's not very npov --Artificialard 06:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Soundtrack / Original score

Is there any benefit to adding information on Cliff Martinez's acclaimed original score to the film? I don't want to clutter the article but this could be interesting information. Any comments? Streltzer 21:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just came here looking for info on it. If anyone has some details...... 5 July 2007

I just came to post that I actually heard the score in a car advert being aired in the UK recently. I'm sure it's aired in the US too due to the high production value. It was very weird hearing it in an advert - took me ages to pin-point where I knew it from when I heard it. Sorry I don't have any more information on the advert, but hopefully this will jog someone's memory so they can provide further information.--NeF 01:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The ad is a Volkswagen ad, and has a website here. 72.189.244.189 23:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Edited it

Removed this bit(it messed up the format): {Spoiler} The film's ending may be seen as touching on the issue of cloning (in a manner comparable to the 2006 film THE PRESTIGE). The most plausible interpretation of the ending is that Kelvin dies on the space station (having chosen to stay behind when it is abandoned). As he dies he is recreated as a replica within the mind of the Ocean - this replica possesses all his memories and experiences its existence as continuous with that of the original Kelvin - and in this form Kelvin is eternally reunited with his wife, who also exists as a replica within the mind of the Ocean. She tells him, in the last words of the film "We don't have to live that way any more. Everything we have done is forgiven - everything".

A cynical reading of this scene, which is clearly contrary to the makers' intentions, might suggest that while the Ocean could make a full replica of Kelvin since it came into direct contact with him, it could only recreate Rheya on the basis of Kelvin's memories of her. Such a reading would imply that Kelvin has condemned himself to an eternity with no company other than himself - a form of damnation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.151.218 (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Redundant

I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned in almost every other sentence that this movie is not a straight adaptation of the book. It would be accurate to say the original movie and book influenced the story but it takes it's own approach to the plot. Really, there needs to be a criticism section where those gripes (along with the author's concerns) are addressed and not throughout the main article. EDIT: I just decided to go and fix it myself.KeeperOTD 17:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Third film adaptation

There are in fact three film adaptations of Solaris - the third, or, actually, the first, being a close to the book made-for-TV movie. [Yes, I've seen it]. It's not widely known, but deserves a mention. I just didn't find a good source, but to keep in mind if you can. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lem criticism

An anonymous editor removed Lem's criticism on Soderbergh's adaptation. I believe his criticism is of much importance, as ... he is the one who actually wrote the novel. I restored the paragraph, again. – Fuzzy – 20:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed repeating edits by anonymous editors, which aim to conceal the mixed reception of Soderbergh adaptation. It began with semi-anonymous/anonymous editor who removed Lem's criticism, twice. Now another anonymous editor made a major edit which main intend is to conceal the fact that Tarkovsky's version is more highly acclaimed. Another major anonymous addition was the huge expansion of the plot section, which reduced the textual weight of the Critical Reception section. All together, it seems more and more like some interested party is trying to shift the critical weight of the article. Semi-protecting is advised. – Fuzzy – 18:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the removal of some Lem text in the third link above was a clincher for me. I have semi'ed so that this can be discussed equitably. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the validity of Lem's quote is a little dubious. In the source currently used, he also states "I have not seen the film and I am not familiar with the script, hence I cannot say anything about the movie itself except for what the reviews reflect." The way the quote is provided reads as his actual response to the film, not as a response to the reviews for a film he hasn't seen, and is therefore out of context. 98.67.255.12 (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Towards the end of the section on Reception, please add the following prefatory clause:

"After reading several reviews of the film (but noting he had not seen the film himself), "

to the following existing sentence:

Lem called Soderbergh's film a "remake of the Tarkovsky movie" and criticized it as departing far from his original intentions in writing the novel by focusing almost exclusively on the psychological relationship between the two main characters, while reducing the vast and alien ocean to a mere "mirror" of humanity:

Thus the end result would be:

After reading several reviews of the film (but noting he had not seen the film himself), Lem called Soderbergh's film a "remake of the Tarkovsky movie" and criticized it as departing far from his original intentions in writing the novel by focusing almost exclusively on the psychological relationship between the two main characters, while reducing the vast and alien ocean to a mere "mirror" of humanity:

Thanks in advance. 72.244.200.48 (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. That appears to be the issue which caused the semi-protection. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the edit request is a straightforward solution to the controversy. The article already cites http://english.lem.pl/arround-lem/adaptations/soderbergh/147-the-solaris-station as the reference for Lem's reaction; click to that webpage from Lem's website, and you'll see the following:

Some reviewers, like the one from the "New York Times", claim the film was a "love story" - a romance set in outer space. I have not seen the film and I am not familiar with the script, hence I cannot say anything about the movie itself except for what the reviews reflect, albeit unclearly - like a distorted picture of one's face in ripply water.

So I ask again that the proposed change be made. 72.244.204.188 (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

And if you can get some other editors to agree with that then you would also have consensus. At the very least you should discuss this with the admin who protected the article, since this is the subject which caused the article to be protected. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. See User_talk:Casliber#Solaris. 72.244.206.162 (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've unprotected it. I had to read the sourcepage a few times to get it right. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Lem motifs

FWIW I remember the following being Lemian (whether intentional or not)

• the double killing its creator and living his persona and place - Star Diaries, annexes
• Increasing gravitational mass and pull by tinkering with stuff you understand poorly - The Invicible - eh scratch that, The Astronauts (on Venus) (at least in defa film version I believe)

The oops i am a simulacron too is probably somewhere too but pretty generic. Not that Lem would have ever executed it in this amateurish way. --88.74.189.145 (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Just adding, it is the Annexes III, the clone is called Zazul (or Sasul); I hear the Annexes are sold separately in other literadictions, so it is probably Memoirs of a Space Traveller for you --88.74.171.210 (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The Lead Needs to explain the Solaris

The lede must explain the Solaris, because it is central to the film. The Solaris is a Xyz....--Inayity (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The last sentence of the intro is incoherent: "Clooney's character struggles with the questions of Solaris's motivation, his beliefs and memories, and reconciling what was lost with an opportunity for a second chance." What? This needs to be edited. I haven't seen this movie though. Mikevanoost (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Suicide by liquid oxygen

Although it may have been liquid oxygen that Reya drank in the source novel, the substance is not so clearly defined in this movie. The spilled container clearly ate through the deck plates and left a slimy green residue behind, this is not damage caused by extreme cold. Also, liquid o2 would freeze Reya's skin and tissues but not cause the immediate and total disintegration of every bodily surface it touched as shown in the film. For these reasons, the substance in question is probably some type of caustic solution. It is likely a very strong acid or base or even an unknown concoction of the near future, but not liquid oxygen. (I have no experience on properly editing wiki entries, I am hopeful somebody familiar with how to properly edit the info in the article could make this correction) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.68.109 (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

text fixed, thx. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

user:Eric wrote in an edit summary:

"aggressive" is incorrect vocabulary and parentheses are inappropriate

aggressive liquid" is correct expression.; use google, and there is no problem with parantheses whatsoever. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I don't mean to offend, but you may want to review this: Wikipedia:Competence_is_required, with particular attention to Section 1. Eric ^talk 18:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Please explain why "aggressive liquid" is incorrect and what's wrong with parentheses. Please explain what kind of incompetence I manifested. Staszek Lem (talk)

We don't use "aggressive" in that way in English. We might use it to qualify certain nouns, e.g. an aggressive acid that quickly ate through the deck plating or it was an aggressive cancer that spread quickly to other organs, but not simply "an aggressive liquid". I don't remember the film, so I was going by the statement of the IP editor above when I substituted "unidentified caustic liquid", hoping someone with knowledge and/or sources would correct "caustic" if it was inaccurate. As for the parentheses, it is considered better style to avoid using them around a whole sentence or phrase as an aside, that style being too conversational for an encyclopedia article. There may be WP guidelines on this; I'm not sure. It would certainly be included in standard style guides, but I can't quote one now. Eric ^talk 19:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)