Does anyone prefer this to the movie S.T.A.L.K.E.R.? Just finished the book. They both certainly have the pangs of psychedelia nailed down, just very different plotwise which I was not expecting
>>24772454The movie is just a tiny piece of the story in the book. Basically nothing in the movie regarding the political situation that created the stalkers. Tarkovsky does a great job at creating the zone and how it would feel, but to me the more interesting and lasting part is the subversive political commentary the Strugatskys fit in. The book details how local and individual survival pressures meet political policy and the poisoning inescapable hand of markets.
>>24772454I love the book and was disappointed by the film desu
>>24772454The movie and the book have very little to do with each other. The book is pulp sci-fi. The movie is an existentialist Dostoevskian narrative.
>>24772546>The movie is an existentialist Dostoevskian narrativeWhat? How? Tarkovsky expresses everything silently and visually. The movie is portraying the world and a single adventure and has nothing to do with personal turmoil or debate. I don’t remember any religious elements in the movie at all. Why did you invoke Dostoyevsky out of your ass like this? Just because they are both two Russian people you know of lol?
>>24772546It's the other way around dickhead. The novel is chock full of philosophical and moral exploration. The film is just atmospheric, and visually impressive that's what it is acclaimed for.
>>24772846>I don't remember any religious elements in the movie at all.NTA but somewhere in his last lines the Stalker asks, impotently, why are there no longer any men of faith, any believers. Most of their conversations as they walk the Zone boil down to faith versus nihilism, vice versus virtue in one form or another. You should rewatch that film, maybe after watching Andrei Rublev. Its very much about faith. Was Tarkovsky Orthodox? I've never looked. Also that book is on my to read list.
>>24774066> Was Tarkovsky Orthodox?From what I know, he was a kind of spiritual materialist. I know it sounds contradictory, but from what I remember it contributed towards his cinematic interest in those dirty long shot scenes of rusting weapons in still water and the other dirt related scenes, like the characters sleeping in filth close to the ground and so on. I don't know if he ever spoke about faith beyond that.It's interesting that making Stalker supposedly killed Tarkovsky and several of his crew due to chemical exposure causing cancers and other illnesses.
>>24772454iirc the authors worked on the screenplay for Stalker? I liked both versions.
>>24774358IIRC they had to write something like thirteen drafts because Tarkovsky kept rejecting them, then the movie had to be shot twice because the film was damaged during development
I consider them completely separate. It wasn't really an adaptation as Solaris was. Completely different themes and character motivations.
>>24772546>“Look into my soul, I know - everything you need is in there. It has to be. Because I've never sold my soul to anyone! It's mine, it's human! Figure out yourself what I want - because I know it can't be bad!"
>>24774379>Good has to made from evil, because it's all we have
My favourite Stalker book is Cubature of the Sphere
>>24774402I heard there are hundreds of these. I guess they're profitable. What's even weirder is that I only ever heard about them in an Eastern European context, I have no idea if they're even printed in English.
>>24774419>I heard there are hundreds of theseThere probably are. I've read like 20 as a kid and can barely remember anything about them.
>>24772546Nice cringe.
>>24772846he meant to say tolstoian, so cut him some slack
