Talk:Solaris (2002 film)

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film: American Start‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Science Fiction Start‑class Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Horror Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]