Which film is better?

Which film is better?

Attached: 2001Solaris.jpg (1135x830, 204K)

Both are great but 2001 is better. Also nice double dubs.

A CHALLENGER APPEARS

Attached: maxresdefault[1].jpg (1280x720, 129K)

>soulless
>soul

2001

Solaris is somehow even more tedious

Both are masterpieces and too different to compare desu, so it's all personal preference.
For me? It's Solaris

2001 by a long shot. Solaris is Tarkovsky's weakest film. Still great though

For me it's Solaris. 2001 is too much focused on form rather than actual content. Also, compared to Solaris, there is a lot of uninteresting futuristic clutter which aged terribly.

I don't think either are the greatest films ever but I'd say 2001, because as obtuse it is, there narrative has purpose and meaning built into it, whereas Tarkovsky is just "lol u figure it out, movies are about FEELS and nothing else"

>aged terribly
nice bait

Solaris is almost the opposite of 2001. It has moments of visual beauty but it resorts to philosophical monologues all the time. 2001 is purely audio-visual

Some bits like the video call or the stewardesses with velcro (?) shoes did. It doesnt add anything to the movie but low-key pseudo-tech-'fascination'.

Solaris is more personal so I prefer it. But I think 2001 is SLIGHTLY better.

2001 is the better one. I find Solaris as tedious.

This, it's a great movie but some parts didn't age too well

Attached: 1446143669672.jpg (1920x2016, 1M)

Yeah, I agree with that. For me the reason to prefer Solaris over 2001. IMO low-SciFi deals with cool futury gadgets, space ships, technological possibilities for maximum audio-visual effect, whereas high-SciFi has a more mature grasp of the matter and asks what new kind of societal, philosophical etc... questions the venture into space possibly brings with itself.
Albeit 2001 offers a bit of both, if relies too much on the audiovisuals and cheap awe moments about future tech. If you take that away, the story becomes quite thin with some elements (le evil supercomputer goes mad trope ) anticipated by pulp media.

when the whole point of that part of the movie is the advancement of technology, isn't that permissible?

I disagree very strongly. Nothing about 2001's "awe moments" are cheap. The spaceship ballet at the start says more than any monologue in Solaris

I disagree as well as the other user. Nothing about 2001 came off as cheap to me. Solaris is one of Tarkovsky's most interesting works, but honestly it should've stayed as a book. In my opinion Kubrick was far more adept at visual storytelling than Tarkovsky ever was.

Of course! I dont say it is a bad movie! But advancement of technology is not the stand-alone motive SciFi should be based on, at least nowadays. Maybe I am biased by the fact that nowadays science fiction has a hard time keeping up with reality. It took quite a time until consumer electronics kept up with 2001, e.g. Video Calls. However, if you watch nowadays tng star trek, a lot of the tech, or how its handled, seems terribly outdated. I am not talking about warp drives and so on, but for example how the crew interacts manually with the ship, whereas nowadays neural interfaces are in the making, sometimes they have clunky headsets, LaForges Visor lacks behind tech which is currently developed etc... long story short, scifi which mainly focused on technological gimmicks is prone to become quickly flat. Whereas scifi which focuses on the grand scheme of philosophical, societal etc question provides timeless interesting topics.

i see quality in tarkovskys films and dont regret watching them, but is anyone else gets tired of his "walk around walk around question meaning of life a dog appears a woman appears lets speak about despair corridors corridors a park lets rip a random page from dostoyevsky yada yada"
does any of his movies feature dialogue that is even remotely true to real life

>dostoyevsky
>not true to real life