What am I in for guys?

The slav experience

The book was much more interesting yes. But Stalker had some great imagery.

Really basic question, Yea Forums:

Is the room even a real thing now or not?

Attached: 1552166197676.jpg (640x608, 57K)

Do you truly want it to be?

If you're a sad and lonely person then you don't need to watch the film.

so open to the viewer (to interpretation) then?
got it.

You guys should try watching the other Tarkovsky film Solaris. To help sell the future Russia setting they went to Tokyo and shot B-roll footage driving on a highway. They were so chuffed with their PRODUCTION VALUES they fucking used all of it unedited - just dashcam footage of highway that goes on for what feels 15 minutes. The rest of the movie is great but as a whole it unironically makes 2001 feel like Star Wars.

Attached: solaris 72.jpg (480x360, 12K)

>chuffed

this, I must be a boomer Solaris is about guys driving around and this one is about guys walking to some train tracks then it's night night for me

>Reads sci fi
>Turns it into a some metaphysical bullshit love story
Not too keen on Solaris or Blade Runner for that matter.

Take a bunch of opioids so you feel all floaty, then watch it. It'll be an unforgettable film experience. Or do the same with The Mirror.

all (actual) sci fi is about the human condition you dummy and not "le science", the science part is just the vehicle/setting to deliver the actual narrative

boredom
better watch some capekino like Infinity War or Endgame

based mentally ill fortnite zoomer

>all (actual) sci fi is about the human condition you dummy and not "le science"
Look up hard science fiction you uninformed faggot.

>turns it into some metaphysical bullshit love story
Enjoying science fiction for the science aspect of it is like watching a drama just to see some tits. Good sci-fi isn't technobabble jerkoff material. It's an exploration of humanity within the context of our current/predicted technologies. Adding a metaphysical element to things doesn't contradict the actual spirit of the material. Eat shit and die.

Watch it to appreciate the beautiful shots and how much they accomplished on a shoestring budget, then read the book to appreciate how much worldbuilding and revolutionary sci-fi was thrown out in the movie, then watch Annihilation to see all the cool anomalies that could have been, then if you really need more play the games

>he thinks hard sci fi is some obscure term
lmao

And please tell me which film you think falls under that category. 2001? Moon? Even that is about the human condition, not about le bill nye epic science

urbexp kino

>Adding a metaphysical element to things doesn't contradict the actual spirit of the material.
Except the actual writer of Solaris disagrees with you. The guy wrote an alien contact novel and was very pissed off about Tarkovsky and Soderbergh turning it into a romance.

No one in their goddamn right mind has ever called Moon hard sci-fi

yeah and Stephen King hates Kubrick films of his work. go figure

you dont came here and ask for opinions, you watch the goddamn thing and THEN you come here to glorify it or spit on it.

>he actually watches films and doesn't just say dumb bullshit after reading the plot synopsis
yikes

It's about stripping down the source material into something that barely resembles sci fi, not scientific accuracy.
>And please tell me which film you think falls under that category
Primer maybe? Haven't seen it though.

>he doesnt marathon youtube clips of a movie and read its wikipedia summary then ask Yea Forums to fill in the blanks
You fuckin sicko

>Primer
don't bother

Bad example because Kubrick actually elevated it into psychological horror whereas the book was supernatural. Solaris the film simplified a Lovecraftian story into a romance and completely missed the point.

Primer is definitely hard sci-fi
The entire plot is about the complications that come out of using a technology that we can not yet comprehend
Also I recommend you watch it, it's like the film version of a rubik's cube

Primer is absolute garbage for plot point mental midget.
Films are not supposed to be puzzles which you have to put together in a certain kind of way to "get" them.

Stephen King also thinks Kubrick missed the point.
I could aswell say that Tarkovsky elevated the source material with his reinterpretation.

>Films are not supposed to be puzzles which you have to put together in a certain kind of way to "get" them.
Never said that, I'm defending the source material which I thought was better.
>I could aswell say that Tarkovsky elevated the source material with his reinterpretation
In what way?

>can't understand time loops
Let me guess Captain America marrying the titcow didn't make sense to you either

It's not about understanding it or not you pea brain, it's the fact that the film is absolutely worthless once you "get" it. There is literally nothing else to it, it might aswell be a kid's puzzle toy, just with more pieces than usual.

Imagine if there is an universal singular answer to any shot in 2001. Or Mirror. Or Mulholland Drive. They would instantly become worthless.

God that part was excruciating. It's a good movie but that had to be one of the most drawn out sequences. It's not like they actually had anything narrative going on. It's just people driving and some little kid being annoying in the back.

DESU before you said it I didn't even realize they were trying to be a future russia.

This shit is so boring the people involved got literally cancer from boredom.

There's a difference between boring and intentionally meditative.
If you thought Stalker was boring, which is incredibly accessible Tarkovsky, you would HATE The Turin Horse (which is a 10/10)

it is an integral part of the story in blade runner dude
now interstellar, there's a good example

>blade runner
>based on a book called 'do androids dream of electric sheep?'
>turns it into a some metaphysical bullshit
You don't say?

kino

honestly best way to put it