The MoFo Top 100 Sci-Fi Films: Countdown

I guess if any explanation works, then what you are saying makes sense. One line saying we found a new planet changes the shape of the entire movie?

__________________
Letterboxd

Going to a new planet does if the movie doesn't take place in a future where interstellar space flight is possible. And it won't be possible for us for centuries (if ever) UNLESS, as in Star Trek, we are granted insight or access to technologies outside the human scope (i.e. from aliens).

Where the planet is determines the entire setting of the movie - is it in a far flung future where we travel by wormholes or is it the near future where life as we know it (and therefore humanity) hasn't changed much, while a trip to another planet that is close enough may only take a few days, weeks or months.

I guess my point is that Solaris is grounded in a psychological and emotional reality that makes stuff like Superman and Star Trek not very good movies to compare it to. I am very pleased that they didn't waste their time making up fake science because for me that doesn't make Superman the least bit more grounded in reality. I would rather spend my time with the conflict within the characters.

As interesting as a discussion between Michael Scott and Superman might be, I'd rather just get the next set already!

__________________
/watching movies for mark f/
MovieMeditation's Cinema Reviews // Film Diary 2015 // Letterboxd Profile // MovieMeditation's Top 50 Horror

Hope MovieMeditation doesn't mind one more thought... but, I understand, SeanC.

Comparing Solaris to 2001: A Space Odyssey (which is often done): the enigma of the alien presence at the end of 2001 and what happens to Dave is unanswered and left open to interpretation (which bugged some of the more concrete thinkers who like a good solid conclusion), but a big difference is that the "science" part of "getting there" in 2001 was thoroughly thought out and explained in special effects grandeur - with all of it based on scientific theory.

So the setting of 2001 had a date (which was way off in its prediction, but that could only be determined by hindsight). A date helps determine the state of mankind. It wasn't a far future, but a near one about 30 years away.

Since Solaris is about psychology, the state of mankind is important (and I think interstellar travel will significantly change the state of mankind and thus human psychology).

None of this is "good" or "bad" regarding Solaris, just ruminations on storytelling & sci-fi.

I get it but now you have compared Solaris to 2001 which is apples and apples so makes more sense. We started the conversation by you asking what doesn't make sense about Superman. Pretty sure the bolded argument doesn't hold up in regards to Superman and Star Trek.

But his backstory does ground him in the realm of science fiction.

If Superman just showed up fully manifested, with no explanation, he could be ANY kind of character.

He could have been created out of a Jungian collective will of humanity (making him a metaphysical psychological character), or maybe he got his powers from pollution or climate change (thus making his message a semi-political one about the environment).
He could be powered by magic or spells (thus making him a fantasy character).
He could be the last of a race of human immortals upon whom classical mythology was based (thus giving him an ancient historical context).
He could be some kind of spirit or the returned Messiah (thus making him a mystical or religious character). Or he could be the result of medical experimentation, radiation or have fallen into toxic waste - making him like a few dozen other super-powered characters.

I selected Superman 2 because its my preferance and Superman is one of the best Alien genre of sci fi films or characters.

This is the crux of the argument to me. Superman is ANY kind of character. If the creators had started with an alien planet and then decided what a being from that planet would be your argument works. They statted with an all powerful being and then shaped his world around that. That's the equivalent of clicking your heels three times to use your analogy. It makes the back story inconsequential. Maybe not uninteresting but completely unnecessary.

Even 2001 A Space Odyssey can't really be compared to Solaris as they are two vastly different styles of story telling, with different intents by the director. It's a case of not being able to compare apples to oranges.

It would be like comparing these two paintings and asking how a clock can appear melted as it does in the Salvador Dali painting and wondering how that makes sense. Those are two different styles of art. Same with movies.



The key is perceiving how the message is being delivered by each movie and not applying one standard to all films.

Rules, my first question is "Where is the clock in relation to planet Earth? (is it on Venus where all clocks would melt?)"

And secondly - "Why the heck is Orson Welles sitting with a hat on in the picture on the left?" and "Is that Paul Masson wine they're drinking?"

When I watch the Richard Lester cut of Superman 2 (the one that was shown in theaters back when it first came out), I can't help but think it's just sort of a bad movie. I absolutely adored it when it came out, but I was 9 years old... Now, it just seems like a poorly put-together comedy with some bad sight gags. The villains were cool but now come across as sort of silly, Terrance Stamp's excellent portrayal of Zod notwithstanding. Reeve's is always fun to watch, but I feel Superman: The Movie is far superior in almost every way. The Richard Donner cut is somewhat better, but incomplete and it relies too much on the same bag of tricks that were used in the first film (time reversal etc.). Superman II has not aged like fine wine.

__________________

Ha, he does look like Orson doesn't.

I do think questioning the science in many sci-fis is fine. Say like in The Martian. That film does go to great lengths to try and explain the science behind the movie.

Did you realize Orson was in that painting? Is that why you chose it?
And this begs the question - was Orson a time traveler? I don't know the painting off hand, but if it's as old as I think it is, and if Orson sat for the painter, well...

That's where you're wrong. Mankind remains mankind. Tarkovsky understood this and therefore focused on humanity in his sci-fi epic, instead of focusing on phony scientific explanations for his plot points.
He could've easily answered your problems with the current form of Solaris and put in scenes that explain the interstellar travel or why the world still looks like the '70s, but those scenes would have been extremely redundant. It wouldn't have made the piece of art he was making any more interesting. On the contrary.

The painting post of @Citizen Rules perfectly demonstrates why your criticism is so weird. You almost make it seem like you don't understand at all what Tarkovsky was trying to do with this film. He wasn't making a film about science or how humanity's evolution relates to science (like Kubrick did in 2001). He was making a philosophical film and used allegories from the future to tell his story. Comparing the two and holding them to the same standard is completely nonsensical.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

I had a feeling someone would make this point. One of the themes of Star Trek was that, although technology will change, mankind remains inherently the same.

I tend to think the Transporter alone would change humankind so dramatically that we can barely comprehend it. I think the Internet is currently changing human psychology to a degree right now that we don't understand.

I'm not disagreeing with you Cobpyth. I get what Tarkovsky was trying to do. The artist part of me liked it, but the scientist part of me didn't.

As a science fiction story, the location of Solaris must have crossed the author's mind.

I think human psychology and its rules basically remain the same over a relatively long period. It's the way those rules get manipulated by their environment that changes.

2001 is about the latter truth. Solaris is about the former.

Honestly glad there are barely any comic book films on this list. They're like a genre all on their own and they don't need to be cluttering up the proper sci-fi list.

__________________
https://t.me/pump_upp

Did you miss gunslinger45's post a day ago?
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...nger45&page=98

To be fair 6 out of 80 something I think qualifies as barely.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews