What did I think of it?
>>23621166>the planet has autismgood book
The Invincible is better.
so…laris, oh hocantaris
I liked the melancholy, ill-fated, tragic love story more than anything else.>>23621170Lol.
>>23621170Kekkerino
I don't know how well it is translated, but I've read that book at least 5 times in Polish, and every time I get to the descriptions of symmetriades, mimoids and other ocean's creations, my brain shuts down and stops processing information. Last couple of times I made a conscious effort to read every word slowly, construct the sentences in my head to make sure I understand them, and then completely fail to visualize what Lem was describing.
>>23621941oh ho oh oh
I hated how close the book was to the film. I already saw the film before picking the book so the whole thing was spoiled. Sure, there were some new stuff, mostly related to the planet, but I would have appreciated it more if I didn't know where everything was going. Also had the same problem as >>23622142 The Symmetriad stuff was very difficult to visualize, which might have been the point, but still.
>>23622221I read the book before watching the movie, and as a fan of Tarkovsky I thought I would love the movie. But fuck that shit. Don't like his changes. Also the movie shifts the overall focus to the characters and not the planet. The book is about the planet, which is far more revealing and complete as a metaphor for a humans brain. The movie completely misses all of this and becomes a slow, poorly acted, ambiguous melodrama in space. It visualizes the planet for less than a minute of the whole run time.Also I have read Roadside Picnic and watched Stalker. Here Tarkovsky at least attempts to create the world of the book, but that is all, the book focuses on the political aftermath of the "visit" while the movie is just an eerie jaunt into the zone one time.Tarkovsky is a fucking hack.
>>23622172>oh ho hoDelightfully devilish, Seymour
>>23622834>I have read Roadside Picnic and watched StalkerSame, just finished Roadside Picnic, would recommend.It's not just sci fi entertainment, is kinda dense with compelling themes.I'd say it is deserving of the title of a classic novel, dialogue was great as well.I wouldn't say Tarkovsky is a hack but it's not like all his works are masterpieces.
>>23622868Stalker is a good film as well, but filmmakers take creative liberties when adapting books to film. That in itself is their own work on its own.
My favourite, the book is great, many hidden meanings. Anyone bored with the book simply didn't get the meaning.
>>23622834solaris in t's film appears through the characters, while mankind tries to stay scientific, all the researchers who have encountered solaris abandon that approach and are confronted with their uttermost deep consciousness of the people they loved. and the planet appears as those, to contact. it is like alien life form wants to meet peope in the langauge they are most familiar with and that is too alienated to form a bridge. As for the rest of the movie, it is well made.have not watched stalker but roadside picknick is just a small trip, nothing too political or scientific or social, it reads just as the view the visitors gave, a little bit of something to ponder on, not too shallow, nothing too deep.
Blaml
>>23621166It does several things at once- confined space setting with only four characters (minimalist)- starts with a mystery that is simple and yet mysterious (What is going on?)- creative concept at center (living planet)- Borgesian passages that satirize the scientific method- still adds an emotional layer with the love/grief story arc- Also, cool character names (Kelvin, Sartorius, Gibarian, Solaris...?)Just altogether quite impressive
>>23625399- Also, constant psychedelic visuals of being surrounded by planet landscapes
What about Lem's other novels? Has anyone here read anything else by him? Are any of his other works worth reading?
