Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Solaris release date moved...

This is topic Solaris release date moved... in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001090

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-31-2002, 03:14 AM:

With the threat of the newly anticipated STAR TREK X movie released on the same December 13 day, and with LOTR TWO TOWERS only six days later, SOLARIS has been moved earlier to November 27, figuring a better deal against another Harry Potter film, which will be viewed mostly by children. Going up against another outer space film and with the more adult oriented RINGS film, they realized what even stupid people would figure out.... No one would go.

Dave

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-31-2002, 03:40 AM:

Is this Solaris a re-release of the Tarkovsky film?

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-31-2002, 03:51 AM:

It is a remake of that film, Directed by Steven Soderberg and Produced by James Cameron.

I have no doubt that this will be a fine film, but I do not believe that it can possibly have the same feel that the original has.

Is it me or has this industry gone crazy with sequels, remakes, redo's, tvshows to cinema, and other assorted crap???

Mind you that isn't always a bad thing, but you start to think that really, in all reality, there can be only two or three truly original movies a year, and the rest are all just wannabees...

You know that a remake of the classic "SCANNERS" is underway? LEAVE THESE DAMN FILMS ALONE.

Let's just kill originality and just make remakes...

Dave

Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 07-31-2002, 04:28 AM:

Hi

I wonder how long it will be before they remake 'What's Up Doc'?

It's been a while since we have had a good screwball comedy.

cheers Peter

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-31-2002, 05:23 AM:

Funny you should say that. I hope they never do. It's a pure comic gem.

I just watched that for like the 100th time last night. never get enough of that one.

Dave

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 07-31-2002, 08:59 AM:

Dave -

Don't you remember saying, "With the way the world is right now, new ideas and movies are not making the impact they once did", and , "We have lord of the rings, star trek 10, harry potter 2, star wars, the matrix, men in black 2, and the list goes on. People need these movies to feel safe and studios need money to stay afloat, and theaters need money for the same reason".

Seems to me like you were in favor of sequals, remakes, and such not too long ago. Now it's crap? I thought, "the public needs movies right now that they feel comfortable with, that make them feel that things are all right". Maybe you can clarify for all of us.

------------------
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" - Homer Simpson

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 07-31-2002, 04:12 PM:

The 11/27 date is official per Upcoming Movies and Variety.

Don't worry, all. This means you're gonna have a heavy-duty November with 5 straight weeks of potential hits:

11/1 -- The Santa Clause 2
11/8 -- 8 Mile (w/Eminem)
11/15 -- Harry Potter 2
11/22 -- Die Another Day (007), Friday After Next
11/27 -- 8 Crazy Nights (Adam Sandler cartoon), Solaris, Treasure Planet (35mm and Imax)

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-31-2002, 04:23 PM:

Two Soderbergh movies 118 days! It doesn't get any cooler than that.

Also, does anybody know if TREASURE PLANET was originally composed for Imax, or what? I have a friend who worked on FANTASIA 2000, and she said that that entire movie was first composed for 1.85:1. It had to be completely recomposed when they decided to go for Imax. Was this the case for TREASURE PLANET, or was it planned for both formats from the beginning?

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-31-2002, 06:51 PM:

Hey Chad, I am on heavy doses of Lortab right now, so bear with me...

SHUT UP!!!

I was not in FAVOR of sequels, I was making an argument as to why they seem to do much more money than films that are not. If you had paid any attention at all, you would have noticed that. Instead, you seem to be much more attentive to trying to show the world how flawed I am. You really should give up your quest to prove to the world that you are smarter than me, because I really don't care if you are.

I do like an occasional sequel if I am into that particular brand of stories, but otherwise, most of it is crap.

Remember I am on heavy lortab right now. Normally, I would have just slapped you silly.

Dave

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-31-2002, 08:34 PM:

Fantasia 2000 was projected on the Imax screen cropped to about 1.66. I just don't see the need to do much recomposing to go from 1.85 to 1.66. Come to think of it, they didn't do a very good job at all of composing the narrative segments between musical numbers. You had to look up to the top of the screen to see who was talking.

TP, I believe, repurposed as an afterthought to experiment with the simultaneous release business.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 08-01-2002, 02:41 PM:

I ran the Tarkovsky Solaris last year at the Telluride film festival. It's a little slow. There is one reel where for 20 minutes all the charactors do is drive in to a city in silence. The print we had was 9 reels long.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-01-2002, 03:29 PM:

Yes: long, sweeping shots of motorways and urban landscapes in that reel. Either they're tedious or they really work, depending on what frame of mind you're in when you see the film.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 08-01-2002, 05:07 PM:

How about a LORTAB state of mind. Always works for me.

Dave

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-01-2002, 05:09 PM:

There's nothing wrong with sequels if they're well done.

Die Hard 2
The Empire Strikes Back
Superman II
Toy Story 2

But when it comes to crap like MIB II, then I too am not in favor of sequels.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 08-01-2002, 05:46 PM:

Was Superman 3 the one with Richard Prior? That was my favorite of those sequals.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 08-01-2002, 08:01 PM:

Ian:

I think you may have confused Tarkovsky films. If memory serves the scene you describe is in Stalker. Solaris takes place entirely at a space station over a planet that is covered by ocean.

And honestly, both are pretty slow moving, Stalker is almost unwatchable. But that was Tarkovsky.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 08-02-2002, 12:01 AM:

That scene Ian describes is definitely in Solaris. I've projected and seen Solaris and Stalker many times.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 08-02-2002, 02:58 AM:

Chad, are you sure you aren't on drugs like me? Superman 3? Please tell me you were joking.

I did like that film, but it really wasn't a superman movie, it was a richard pryor movie. It just happened to have superman in it. It would have worked the same if it had batman, aquaman, yahooman or soulman. But for a richard pryor movie, it was pretty good.

There are some sequels that really do surpass the original...

Die Hard 2 did that...
Empire Strikes Back.. far superior to Star Wars...
Star Trek 2... SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE FIRST ONE.. and the following seventeen versions as well...

So there is some worth to a FEW sequels, but most are just eye candy designed to make people feel safe in the fact that this is the same crap as always. Nothing to worry about.

Dave

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 08-02-2002, 03:58 AM:

I agree that SUPERMAN 3 is the best of the series. But it still sucks ass.

What's with the whole DIE HARD 2 thing? If I'm not mistaken, both Siskel and Ebert put it on their top ten lists for 1990. Another Chicago critic has called it the best action film of all time. Now, I love DIE HARD 2 as much as the next guy, but how is it better than the first one? The original DIE HARD is one of the best pictures ever made. It has a lot of stuff that the sequel lacked. Things like logic, suspense, three-dimensional characters, good performances, a DP named Jan de Bont, Alan Rickman, and other stuff, too. What does DIE HARD 2 have that makes it so great? This is something which I've been curious about for years now.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 08-02-2002, 08:28 AM:

Superman 3 the best of the series? No. Superman 2 was the best of that series. But did you know that Superman 1 and 2 are actually part of the same story, and were pitched to the studio that way? The original intention was to make one long picture, but the decision to make two films was made early on. I believe that in this case this is why the second film is better than the first, because it is the closure of the story line.

As with Die Hard 2 and why it surpassed the first one, is purely because that overall is was a better picture. There were no stand out performances as was the case with Alan Rickman, who arguably is one of the best movie bad guys ever, but it served as a better story. We already had most of the character development out of the way, and still managed to provide fun and new things to keep the audience jumping.

Dave

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 08-02-2002, 09:41 AM:

How is DIE HARD 2's story better? It's not like the first one had the most realistic story in the world, but it was at least somewhat plausible. DIE HARD 2 has so many moments where you just go, "Aw, c'mon! That couldn't happen!" And I'm not saying that that's a bad thing in general, but right now, we're talking about story. DIE HARD is also a much smaller picture, which in turn, makes it easier to follow. There's never a confusion of what the action is or where it's happening. Also, it has the formula of one man versus an army, in a confined environment, with no help from the outside. DIE HARD 2 tries to do this, but it can't. The characters in the first film are also much more well-defined and complex than the second one, but at the same time, their motivations are much simpler and universal, which makes it easier for the audience to relate to them. It's like Frank Darabont said. DIE HARD is all about a guy who's just trying to get back together with his wife. And that's why it works so well. But when it comes right down to it, DIE HARD and DIE HARD 2 have very very similar stories, and even if DIE HARD 2's happened to be better (which I don't think it is) it's lacking so much on every other level that I still cannot understand why the vast majority of critics, and Dave, think it's better than the first one.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 08-02-2002, 10:10 AM:

What was so non-plausable about Die Hard 2? And why does something have to be plausable before it is good? Star wars was really good, but totally not plausable. Movies are supposed to be fantasy, even if based somewhat in reality.

As to why I think Die Hard 2 was better than the first? Well you do make the very good point once again, as I did, that Alan Rickman was a very well defined bad guy, and that Bruce willis was a very well defined good guy. Yes the stories were similar in nature, as is with many sequels. HOWEVER, there was a different nature about the film. Bruce willis's character instead of one man against an army, he now has the help of a cast of several, showing his ability to be an effective commander, so now it is army against army, while still getting into that one against many situation. Not only does he have to face the bad guys, he has to convince the many that he is right, and get them to follow him to victory. It shows a wider dynamic in his character as he must deal with the many individuals who are not the bad guy, but yet could hinder the process. Plus, sneaking around is a lot harder in a very open space, where there are fewer places to hide around in. It is harder to play PEEK A BOO that way. It puts him in the position of getting ambushed instead of the other way around.

We also get the added dynamic of several differnt lives affected because of the potential for widespread disaster in the form of crashing airplanes with many more innocents to destroy. When he finds the burned up doll on the runway, his character is reminded that he could lose something so precious to him if he cannot succeed. Much like in the first film, but with more ominous overtones.

Try not to think of this as a rehashed story, as would be the impulse with any sequel, but more of a continuation of the story line. Remember that in the first, he was on the outs with wifey, hoping to patch things up. Now they are good to go, and he doesn't want to lose that. Thier lives are different, and now he just happened to be in the wrong place at the right time, again.

Most movies these days are nothing but rehashes of other stories anyway. But lets face it, just because its been done, doesn't mean that no one else can do it again. As Robin Williams put it "When someone asks you to put it in your own words, respond with this... SPLERP LEEK PUTNAK GOLROK NUP"

Finland born director Renny Harlin handled the duties quite well. He has had success with pretty weak material, and yes Die Hard 2 was no excpetion. He was able to give the film a dimention that separated it in many ways from the first film. He has had some successes, and some failures, as most directors do.

Dave

Posted by Geof Abruzzi (Member # 1312) on 08-02-2002, 10:42 AM:

I wouldn't consider the new Soderberg "Solaris" a remake of the previous film. Before it was a tarkovsky film it was a pretty famous Novel by Stanislaw Lem. While I'm a big fan of Tarkovsky ("Stalker" is one of my favorite films of all time) I felt that "Solaris" was not one of his best films, and leaves out large themes from the book. I for one welcome someone else's attempt, to stand next to tarkovsky. Unfortunatly I suspect the Soderberg version won't fully satify me either. I'm not sure what living director could really capture all the nuances from the book.

Geof

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 08-02-2002, 04:06 PM:

Dave,
You make some interesting points about DIE HARD 2, and I can now see why someone would like it more. The differences that you mentioned between the two films were interesting, although I still prefer the situations presented in the first picture. I think that they worked better. But that's just me. As for the plausibility issue, like I said before, I don't think that that's necessary or even always desirable in filmmaking. But when you're talking strictly about story, especially one which is somewhat rooted in reality, I think it definitely helps.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 08-03-2002, 09:51 AM:

Mike -

You're right, the first Die Hard was better, but you might as well drop it, Dave is never wrong.

------------------
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" - Homer Simpson

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 08-03-2002, 11:25 AM:

Chad, I know the only reason you said that was to provoke a response, so you can get your jollies. The only I question I have for you is; is your life so devoid of joy that you only get your kicks trying to kick me around?

It's time to get a life man.

First off, you are mistaken that I am never wrong. I know you use the phrasing in a more cynical manner, but I understand your point. It is not that I feel I am always right Chad, but rather, I spend time formulating opinions, studying facts, researching and reading, and making sure I have covered all bases before I speak.

It is easy for one such as yourself to think that I feel all high and mighty about myself. My own personal pursuit of excellence allows me a very small margin of error in things that I say and express. There is a very old and wise qoute; "it is better to be silent and to be though of as thoughful, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".

So for me, I prefer to at least try to know what I am talking about before I start into any conversation. When we are talking about the nuances of wheter Die Hard is better then Die Hard 2, that is all just a matter of personal opinion. I can state all of my reasons why I believe the second film is better, and also try to make the case of why so many critics and audience members preferred the second film. Someone else can try to make thier point as to why they liked the first one better, and why it is better in thier opinion. After all, it is just opinion.

Of course, you could just interject and try to make people think I am all high and mighty, but all you do is come off like you have some childish vendetta against me. Sometimes I have to wonder what keeps you up at night, then I remember I have more important battles to fight.

So you understand Chad, I am only one person with one opinion. I do not force it down anyone's throat. If you read every post I have ever made, you would find this to be true.

I do have a very strong opinion, and stand by it. I also am very open minded, and am able to take information I may have not considered before, to either change or strengthen my current opinion.

In the future, you might want to save your posts for some meaningful dialogue. I have seen you do so in the past. Let's get the old Chad back. How about it?

I don't mind a challenge. I love a good brain drain. But let's keep it to that extent, and not trying to see if you can tie me up in a cloud of my own logic. You could do it, I am sure, because I am not always right, but the time you spend trying to show me up could be better spent just forming your own brilliant opinions and ideas.

Dave