Talk:Solaris (1972 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Solaris (1972 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
February 24, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Wessel, Kari (2004). "Alien Encounters: Science Fiction and the Mysterium in 2001, Solaris, and Contact". In Rickman, Gregg. The Science Fiction Film Reader. Limelight Editions. pp. 181–209. ISBN 0879109947. 

Various threads with no title[edit]

Said a mysterious not logged in editor: "Soderberg's version is new adaptation, not remake"

Friend, perhaps you should take a look at what Stanislaw Lem's website has to say: Re-make. Re. Make. Make again. RE-MAKE. That doesn't mean it's not a "new adaptation", but being a "new adaptation" doesn't make it "not [a] remake" unless you live on some planet where "making another film based on the same story as an existing one" is not "remaking". --Brion VIBBER, Thursday, May 23, 2002
Would you call a new Adaptaion of Hamlet a remake of one of the previous adaptaions? -- Captain Proton 11:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


Hmm, does it really make sense to have separate articles on Solaris (novel) and Solaris (movie)(s)? At present there certainly isn't enough material to justify treating them separately. --Brion VIBBER

No, it doesn't make sense for to have separate novel and movie articles for Solaris or in any other case! If there are two articles, the movie article has to refer to the novel article and vice versa, and anyone really interested has to go to two (or more) places (starting with a disambiguation page) to find out about Solaris or David Copperfield, click here for example, or whatever. Ortolan88 09:51 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)
How about we merge both into Solaris (Lem) (since just Solaris is a disambiguation page, and we can't really claim Lem's work as the best-known use of the word)? --Brion VIBBER

Another comment[edit]

Maybe it doesn't make sense in this case where there's very little text, but in general I think some books and movies will certainly merit separate articles. Text about the story itself (i.e., that which is common to both) should appear in the article about whichever came first. This article will briefly mention "Was made into a 1983 movie by...", which links to the movie article. The latter article will talk about only the movie. Some stories will even have separate articles for more than one movie...e.g., "Romeo and Juliet (1968 movie)".


The "fan site" link leads to a site mostly about the new "solaris" - anyone care to find a better one? Err, nevermind, followed an ambiguous redirect.


Removed this external link: (1972 version page)

It appears to have gone 404. Anybody got a newer better version? (couldn't find a new version on a quick Google search). There is this: which appears to indirectly refer to the old site. --Lexor 10:26, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)


You can't put together the Lem's novel and the 2002 movie just because they share the same title.

The original novel and 2002 movie don't match neither in quality, atmosphere, consistency, problems they work on, nor the influence they impose in their fields. Arguably, the movie had its own goals and had just stolen from the book what it liked or needed. In 2 years nobody will even remember the movie.

i think there should be three articles, one for the novel and one for each movie. if you think theres not enough content, add a stub message. anyone really interested in, say, the 1972 movie has to to look up the pages for the novel and the remake, but they also have to go to the pages for lem, tarkovsky, stalker, andrei rublev, 2001, etc. as well as (if they havent already) pages on sci-fi and russian cinema in general.

Nateji77 03:59, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


"Movie" is American slang, why can't we use "film" which is proper English?

  • Film sounds too "european" :) haha
  • I don't know whether or not it is used in the UK, but in the US "movie" is definetly not slang, notice that the word "slang" is not found on the Wikitionary entry for movie. Although I have no problem with it being moved to "film". --Wulf 01:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • FUI, an agreement was reached to use (film) and, e.g., (1978 film) in disambigging titles. mikka (t) 03:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"Critical Essay"[edit]

This really doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all, does it? Whose critical thoughts are these? The essay should be posted on some other website, and the author can place an external link within the Solaris article. Zerologic 03:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Right. Deleted. mikka (t) 03:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this does belong on Wikipedia, in its context of course. There are operation "essays" that have been developed here that exist nowhere else that are constantly cited by admins to create for editors a controlled, and perhaps repressive, environment. So why can not there be critical analysis? Critical analysis is the basis of the classical information style which is what Wikipedia attempts to emulate (for free); the new style is constructed knowledge, which views information as building blocks rather than knowledge itself and science as reflective questioning rather than disconnected exploring.--John van v (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Lem's opinion of Tarkovsky's version[edit]

There is an interview with Stanislaw Lem on the Criterion DVD release of Tarkovsky's film. In it, his frustration with Tarkovsky's apparent failure to understand his novel is made very clear. Whatever the merits of Tarkovsky vs. Soderbergh in terms of the films themselves, there is no denying that Tarkovsky completely ignored some of the major themes of Lem's novel. Tarkovsky leaned toward the mystical, whereas Lem's book is philosophical but not mystical. Soderbergh's film is a better interpretation of the novel, although it might be a lesser work of art when considered purely as film. This is more than just my opinion, but nevertheless, I'm putting it here until I feel up to documenting the comments made by Lem in the interview. Slowmover 22:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Completely wrong... no merit in what you said at all. While I agree Tarkovsky strays from the book, Soderbergh's film doesnt even feel like its from the same subject matter. He completely lost track of what it means to be truly outside human comprehension and left us with a wallowing piece of crap (true its my opinion that its bad but its no opinion that he completely mistreated the ocean) Thepossumdance (talk) 06:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Or does he?[edit]

Just watched Soderburgh's remake of Solaris on Channel 4, saw it at the pictures a couple of years ago as well, I've also seen tarkovsky's version a couple of times, but not for several years... Anyway, I have to disagree with the statement;

a major divergence from the novel and the Tarkovsky version is the fact that Kelvin never journeys to the surface of Solaris (in fact, the planet appears to be gaseous, rather than an ocean world).

My interpreation of the ending was that Kelvin did indeed journey to the planet's surface at the end - he thought he'd left and returned to earth, where he 'couldn't reconect with the earth's rythms' etc, he then cut his hand and had the insight/memory that the escape pod or whatever hadn't left the staion but had in fact been absorbed by the expanding planet, and he had thus become a part of it's conscienssness... maybe I'm wrong, but the ending seemed quite similar to Tarkovsky in that way... quercus robur 22:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the statement refers specifically to the concept of "surface". Solaris, as a gas planet, has no surface. Staecker 00:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The current description as a "major divergence" is rather overstating things. It's really just detail that Kelvin stays aboard the space station rather than journeying to the surface of Solaris. Both ways he winds up being "absorbed" by the planet.
As for what Solaris is (in a planetary sense), it's not entirely clear from the 2002 film that Solaris is an ocean world, a gas giant or even a star. So I'm not sure the point about its "surface" holds. Then again, the original film had a rather strange looking Solaris that didn't seem to be a planet either. I've not read the novel, but it might help the article if someone could comment on this point (or not!).
In the (English translation) of the novel, Solaris is described as covered completely by an "ocean", but parts of the surface are constantly changing as the planet appears to experiment with creating objects from the memories of the humans on the space station, such as landforms, structures, and of course, the resurrected humans. So it's not a water ocean, it's a sentient thing. IMHO, the novel is better than either film, but thematically, Soderbergh is closer to the novel than Tarkovsky, who really had no interest or apparent understanding of what Lem's book was about. That doesn't mean Tarkovsky's film isn't a great piece of cinema (I think it is); it just isn't really representative of the novel. Slowmover 14:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
As an aside, the text presently describes the 2002 film as "slow". While it hardly moves at all compared to what usually constitutes a "science fiction" film, relative to the original film it's practically at light speed. While I respect what Tarkovsky has done, making a film's pacing ponderous is not the same as making it pondering of complex issues. --Plumbago 12:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Could we get some people in here who have actually read the novel??? hmmmmm this is pathetic. ACTUALLY IT IS A MAJOR DEPARTURE HOW WOULD YOU KNOW YOU HAVENT READ THE BOOK!!! the audacity to make such a confident statement about something you havent even looked at is amazing Thepossumdance (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lem on the film adaptations of Solaris[edit]

"Was Andrei Tarkovsky in touch with you as he was producing the film "Solaris"? What is your opinion about the films by Andrei Tarkovsky and Steven Soderbergh? Do you agree with the changes which the directors made in your stories?

Tarkovsky was crazy about the idea of filming "Solaris"... During those times he was told by a number of high-ranking members of the Soviet Communist Party that one should not film this book, because this work is ideologically flawed: idealistic, subjective and metaphysical. However he would not listen to them because Tarkovsky was entirely made up of this idealistic-metaphysical stuff mixed with a "Russian soul" - hence he was not a good addressee of such warnings. I have serious reservations regarding his film adaptation. Firstly, I would like to see the planet Solaris. Secondly, during one of our arguments I told Tarkovsky that he never made "Solaris" - but "Crime and Punishment" instead. From this film we gather that this horrible Kelvin-guy lead poor Harey to suicide and later had some remorse about it - while the latter was strengthened by her reappearance in strange and incomprehensible circumstances. What was just awful, was the introduction of Kelvin's parents and an aunt. But his mother was the worst, since this was the Russian mat', i.e. Rodina - the Mother Earth. This really angered me a lot. At that point we were like two horses dragging the same cart in different directions. Peoples' lives, that we get to know at the station, are no existentialist anecdotes, but grand questions concerning the place of humans in the Cosmos! My Kelvin decides to stay at the planet without any hope, while Tarkovsky created a vision with some island and a hut. I am quite irritated by this image... I cannot stand the "emotional gravy" in which Tarkovsky submerged my heroes, not to mention the fact that he entirely removed the scientific landscape of the planet and replaced it by a number of eccentricities. I can tell you very little about Soderberghs' remake. I hear that critics perceive it as derived from Tarkovsky. From the financial point of view this movie certainly was a spectacular fiasco." from a 2004 interview with Lem. -- noosphere 05:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement about ending?[edit]

The article says The film ends with Kelvin in a sense returning back to Earth, although viewers are divided on whether he goes to a simulation of one part of Earth on the planet Solaris (as the zooming-out at the very end, showing a small piece of land floating in a large ocean, seems to suggest), whether he actually goes back to Earth, or whether he somehow stays on the space station.

Is there actually disagreement about this? Long before the camera had zoomed out I speculated that he was on Solaris. They gave a pretty obvious hint a little bit earlier when Snout was saying that islands had begun to form on the surface. Kelvin starts talking about how he's waiting for a miracle, and Snout says that maybe he should return to Earth. Then Kelvin flashes him a grin back and says "Is that your opinion?" Since the islands were being created from the most important memories of the crew, it didn't seem all that shocking to me that there would be one representing that part of his imagination. Even if it hadn't zoomed out I'd have thought it was pretty clear what happened. Once it did it seemed pretty explicit. The waters on Solaris don't look like Earth oceans, so it's not like it left much for interpretation. Can we just say what happened, or are there people who seriously argue other interpretations? Sarge Baldy 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Read this IMDB thread. I will never understand it, but there are people who think that he went back to Earth in the end. It would be inaccurate not to mention that people disagree about the ending (although I would argue that it is because they don't pay attention - regardless, there is disagreement). Esn 06:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. Although honestly I just think that's people digging for some deeper meaning in a very clear-cut ending. Someone in that thread commented on how it was raining inside the house, saying it was due to Solaris misinterpreting Kelvin's thoughts. Which is yet another hint. You think to the extent Tarkovsky hammered his point in, people would have just accepted it. I think it might be a good idea to expand upon the debate more. It'd be interesting to see if there's an interview with Tarkovsky that gives more of his insights into it. Sarge Baldy 06:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
That person was actually me, under my other nickname. I too think that it was quite obvious when you analyze all of the clues. However, there are always people who just do not see the reasoning and insist upon a different interpretation. We've all met them, and their objections must be noted as well. If they insist that the zooming-out at the end which shows that our main character is on an island was not meant to be taken literally but was just a metaphor... fine, fine. We have to mention that too. However, perhaps we should also mention how the book ends, and which one of these interpretations is more likely. Esn 03:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Black and white?[edit]

A "black and white films" category has been added to the article, but I've a feeling the film is in colour. I certainly remember it that way (but saw it 15 years ago, so amn't entirely sure), and the IMDB suggests that it's black and white / colour. Can anyone who's seen it more recently clarify? Cheers, --Plumbago 08:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Like most of Tarkovsky's films, there are portions in black and white (e.g. the very long "city of the future" car drive sequence), which is enough to warrant inclusion in the category. Staecker 12:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Much of the film is in colour, but a quite surprisingly large amount of it (maybe even more than half) is in black and white. It is funny how selective our memory can be sometimes. Esn 07:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Filming in Japan[edit]

It's obvious that the car sequence was filmed in Japan. You can clearly see Japanese plastered on buildings throughout the sequence and on the road. I often wonder howthe Soviets got away with shooting the sequence, and also putting it in when its obvious that the language present is neither Russian nor some sort of futuristic script. SiberioS 22:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Solaris ITA.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Solaris ITA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Solaris 1972 DVD.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Solaris 1972 DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Third film adaptation[edit]

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| 20:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold comments[edit]

After some copy editing, here is what I have to say:

  • Image:Natalya bondarchuk-solaris.jpg needs more thorough rationale.
  • The paragraph beginning with "In the book, Lem describes the inability of human science to properly handle a truly alien life form that is beyond human understanding," needs citations, as it is currently without references.
  • Image:Solaris 1972 DVD.jpg needs a better rationale, as a major part of it (the "source" section) is missing.
  • A standard citation method is needed—sometimes the author's last name is first, sometimes it is second, and page ranges should use en dashes, not hyphens.

Tell me on my talk page when you are finished. Kakofonous (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 24, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Plot summary, in particular, was engaging to read.
2. Factually accurate?: Refs a bit thin.
3. Broad in coverage?: Definitely.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Yes.
6. Images?: Great screenshots.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Kakofonous (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a ref for the Cannes info. Lugnuts (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Landscape with the Fall of Icarus[edit]

I'm not able to find the details of the Landscape with the Fall of Icarus depicted in the film. Could someone specify when it was shown in the film? Thanks. Twisp (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I just watched the film & did not see it... (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


In both novel & movie, the "station" hovers a few hundred feet above the ocean surface... So technically, it is not really a "space station" as it is not in outer space.... 17:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

They don't say how it got to Solaris, so it's a possibility that it had to travel trough space. Also, I just watched the film and I was not under the impression that it was "a few hundred feet" above the planet. (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


When the film first appeared, I had a very hard job tracking down the Bach organ work. There was no BWV number given on the subtitled credits. Instead, just a reference (which remains on the DVD version) to "the chorale prelude in F minor". I spent months searching for an F minor chorale prelude which matched my recollection of the theme without success. (Remember, no video or DVD in 1972: cinema screening only). I only came across BWV639 by chance. (Remember, no internet back in 1972). In all my scores, BWV639 is written in C minor, not F minor - three flats, rather than four. Was this a simple subtitle error? Was the film version transposed into F minor (even my cloth ears ought to be able to detect that)? Is there some controversy over the original key of BWV639? I spent so long on this quest that any enlightenment would be greatly appreciated. PDAWSON3 (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Following the above, I have come across a score with four flats, but the notes are exactly the same, hence no transposition. For example, the D in bar three has a flat symbol next to it in the three flats version, but not in the four flats version. There is a note at the bottom of this score reading "Original key-signature three flats (W.E.)" PDAWSON3 (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article[edit]

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 05:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is the organist on this version of BWV639? Is he / she credited anywhere? It sounds as if the recording is much older than the movie. / Conny Nimmersjö —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Art vs. art house[edit]

Technically, as a lot of auteurs express themselves and opinions through their films their films are considered their art. However, if you are going to source something as art house while only going into sources discussing the film's artistic merits, then you can not just add that within the article per WP:RS. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a remake[edit]

This film is not a remake of Solaris (1968 film). Anyone who thinks that it is a remake of that film should cite a source. I've never read anything about the film that suggests it was based on or even influenced at all by the earlier film. This article describes the writing process which has no mention of the earlier film. In particular the original draft was mostly set on earth- I assume this would've been completely different from the 1968 film. (though I haven't seen it) Staecker (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - my recent edit - [edit summary => "rv - per List of film remakes N-Z#S, Solaris (1972) & Solaris (2002) are "remakes" of Solaris (1968) & Solaris (novel) (1961)."] - to add Category:Film remakes to the Solaris (1972) article depends on => List of film remakes N-Z#S, Remake#Film and the Wiktionary definition of film "remake" as follows => "A new, especially updated, version of a film, video game, etc." - this seems sufficient reason to include Category:Film remakes in the Solaris (1972) article - further support doesn't seem needed - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should be using wiktionary as a source for a true definition. Is it fair to say that since both films are based off the same source material, that Dracula (1931) is a remake of Nosferatu (1922)? I think we should do a bit of research as I'm not sure if there is a definite answer. Especially since this film (to my knowledge) is quite different from it's source material. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - the Oxford Dictionary definition of "remake" is as follows => "a movie or piece of music that has been filmed or recorded again and rereleased." - the Webster Dictionary definition of "remake" is as follows => "to make anew or in a different form" and gives as an example, "They will be remaking the film with American actors." - these definitions seem similar to the Wiktionary definition (ie, "A new, especially updated, version of a film, video game, etc.") - also, there seems to be a book (via of a Google Books Search) about Solaris remakes and (possibly?) a relevant quotation - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Our List of Remakes article is irrelevant- it is wrong also. None of your provided definitions of "remake" fit this movie. If you like you could say that Solaris 1972 is a "remake" of the original book, since the book is the source material. But that's not the typical usage of the word "remake"- the usual term in english for that would be "adaptation". Solaris 1972 is not a remake of the 1968 film, because the 1968 film was not used as the source for the 1972 film. Nobody watched the 1968 film, and then said "let's make another version of that film". So the 1972 is not a "new version of" the 1968, it's not a version of the 1968 which was "filmed again". It fits none of the definitions you provided.
Your google book sources are appreciated- the "relevant quotation" discusses whether or not Solaris 2002 is a remake of Solaris 1972, with no mention at all of Solaris 1968. If anything it implicitly assumes that Solaris 1972 is not a remake of anything but is the "original" Solaris film. Solaris 2002 was repeatedly referred to by critics and other media as a remake of the 1972. I've never seen anything at all to indicate that anybody considers the 1972 to be based on the 1968. Staecker (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
@Staecker - Thank you for your comments - one wonders if Andrei Tarkovsky ever saw Solaris (1968) - and was "inspired" to do a better version - esp interesting since it seems Tarkovsky began work on Solaris (1972) in 1968, the same year Solaris (1968) was released, according to the book, "Remakes: 'Solaris' by Andrei Tarkovsky (1972)..." - nonetheless, seems that much of the discussion is about the definition of the word "remake" - or perhaps, the definition of the phrase, "film remake" - I've provided my best efforts (ie, Wiktionary, Oxford, Webster) w/ this at the moment - which doesn't seem to be entirely ok w/ you for one reason or another - perhaps you can provide - with reliable citations of course (maybe even some relevant examples?) - a better definition of the word - and/or phrase - please understand that I may find your definition(s) *entirely* ok and join you w/ a better understanding of the issue in this article (and perhaps others as well) - incidently, I'm really on your side w/ all this - just hoping to clarify the issue - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Brief Followup => if interested (and since this may be relevant to the present discussion), there are several video versions of Solaris (1968) on YouTube at the following => Complete-1 (142:27) (includes eng-subs/cc click-on), Complete-2 (142:27) (eng-subs), Complete-3 (142:27), Clip (09:50) and Trailer (00:54) - interestingly, seems that this reference also refers to Solaris (1972) and Solaris (2002) as "remakes" of Solaris (1968) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks very much for those video links- I have always wanted to see the 1968 version but I've never found it. I should've checked YouTube.
I guess the definition of "remake" is indeed the issue here. I don't have any problem with the definitions you provide- but Solaris 1972 vs 1968 doesn't fit those definitions as a remake since the 1972 is not based in any (verified) way on the 1968. Other similar examples include what Andrzejbanas cited above- Dracula vs. Nosferatu are two different films of the dracula story, but the second isn't a remake of the first film. Another example maybe more relevant- The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) is a film classic, but there were 3 other films before it- see The Wizard of Oz. The 1939 is not a remake of the earlier films, it is another adaptation of the book. The recent films based on the Hobbitt and Lord of the Rings are not remakes of the earlier (animated) films about the same subject. No other examples come to mind immediately, but I bet lots of other books have been made into film adaptations independently several times. Staecker (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent comments - and examples - seems the words "remake", "adaptation" and "re-adaptation"(?), based on the "Remakes:'Solaris' by Andrei Tarkovsky (1972)..." book, may be clear in some instances - but perhaps not clear in other instances - in addition - seems some commentators to the Solaris (1968) YouTube videos, have a very high regard for the (1968) version - and some may regard it as the better of all three film versions (according to one commentator, "this version (1968) is better than Tarkovskys (1972) because it has lot of dialogs from the book" - according to another commentator, there's also a "very good radio play with a brilliant Snout..."/google translation) - in any case - thanks again for your recent comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)