The spiritual predecessor and inspiration for S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

[Steelyglint]

I don't think the movie has any effect on the novel at all. I just don't think Tarkovsky should have been allowed to associate his 'product' with it in any way. A bit like somebody selling very poorly-made garden wheelbarrows and claiming they're his interpretation of the Ferrari or Lamborghini range.

And the 'Rot' has definitely set in here. There are few under the age of 30 who can sustain attention for more than 5 to 10 seconds - try sitting in a cinema if you don't believe that. Well, that or cinemas are only attended by infants and imbeciles these days.

We also have a new-ish problem on our streets. It is likely to cost several billions restructuring and shoring up footpaths to be able to take the pounding that the new breed of supermassive beach-ball people are now giving them. I know we didn't have anything like the numbers we have now before places like 'Macdonalds' and 'Burger King' (dis)graced our town and city centres.

We could fill up a 53 seater bus with them (that would be maybe 7 or 8 supermassives) and send it to some famine-ridden nation. That lot should keep the entire country fed for a good six months.

.

[marie pavie]

Working with Andrei on the Script of Stalker.
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/...trugatsky.html

Posted both as for interest of the thread topic, and as rebuttal to the argument that the book & film have no relationship.

[Steelyglint]

Nobody said there was no relationship, no connection.

But considering the high quality content of one against the tedious content of the other they shouldn't be connected at all.

Any 'talent' shining from Tarkovsky due to 'Stalker' is simply a feint reflection of the Strugatsky's brilliance.

.

[pureobscure]

Originally Posted by Steelyglint

I'm not much of a film critic. I watch movies for the story, for the action or for the comedy.

Tarkovsky's offering doesn't seem to have any of those things. After watching it I immediately wanted to know who I needed to contact in order to get back those wasted hours of my life.

There is more storyline, action and comedy in a couple of hours spent watching some paint dry or watching some grass grow.

It is dreadful.

The only thing I agree with is that you're "not much of a film critic".

Whether you like him or not, Tarkovsky is one of the greatest filmmakers ever. And, with all due respect, if you found this movie "dreadful" it's because you don't understand or care about thematics, metaphor, cinematography or philosophy.

In other words; you're part of Hollywood's prime demographic.

[Steelyglint]

Originally Posted by pureobscure

The only thing I agree with is that you're "not much of a film critic".

Whether you like him or not, Tarkovsky is one of the greatest filmmakers ever. And, with all due respect, if you found this movie "dreadful" it's because you don't understand or care about thematics, metaphor, cinematography or philosophy.

In other words; you're part of Hollywood's prime demographic.

If I, and others like me, are Hollywood's main target audience it baffles me how they (directors, actors, etc.) manage to buy so many Bugatti Veyrons, multi-million dollar houses, yachts and so on. I may go to a cinema once every 5 to 10 years, but I have never purchased a video or DVD of a Hollywood product. Where does their money come from?

Thematics? Only ever seen that used in connection with philately: something about only collecting stamps with pictures of butterflies or vintage cars on them.

Metaphor. Hmmm. So the movie is only symbolic of the novel?

Cinematography. Now you could have a point. A long, multi-minute close-up of a face holding one expression, then another of a different, though still unmoving face, then a quick shot of a character moving one foot. Then back to the multi-minute close-ups of total inactivity. If that's what you mean you are most welcome to it. When watching a 'movie' I sort of expect things on the screen to 'move'.

Philosophy. Well, I tried. But 'Stalker' just doesn't appear to contain any kind of study into the fundamental nature of knowledge, existence and reality. And I really would pass over Tarkovsky, actually just about all Russian film-makers, in favour of the group the Monty Python team recommends: Kant, Heidegger, Hume, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Schlagel, Nietzsche, Socrates, etc.

And I really couldn't say whether I like Tarkovsky or not. I've never met the chap, and deciding on his likeability or otherwise without such a meeting would strike me as downright presumptuous.

But disliking the man and disliking something he once did are not identical or interchangeable situations.

.

[marie pavie]

To argue something well is very difficult, & average arguments aren't very convincing, so I'll go with the low brow argument.

You're just wrong.

[Steelyglint]

Rather than 'just wrong' I would say we simply have differing views. Neither is right or wrong as there is nothing fundamental or proveable being argued, no evidence that can be offered either way that would immediately settle the matter.

I think 'agree to disagree' is more fitting.

.

[PenGun]

It is true the movie is glacial in parts but a true Stalker, who has lived long in the zone, is not in a hurry.

[Desi]

Originally Posted by Westwick

Reminds me of Waiting for Godot.

Having already seen Waiting for Godot I cannot spare the effort to watch this. It's one or the other sorry.

Yup. Watched both twice, enjoyed them both.

[mengu]

Originally Posted by Steelyglint

1)If I, and others like me, are Hollywood's main target audience it baffles me how they (directors, actors, etc.) manage to buy so many Bugatti Veyrons, multi-million dollar houses, yachts and so on. I may go to a cinema once every 5 to 10 years, but I have never purchased a video or DVD of a Hollywood product. Where does their money come from?

2)Thematics? Only ever seen that used in connection with philately: something about only collecting stamps with pictures of butterflies or vintage cars on them.

Metaphor. Hmmm. So the movie is only symbolic of the novel?

Cinematography. Now you could have a point. A long, multi-minute close-up of a face holding one expression, then another of a different, though still unmoving face, then a quick shot of a character moving one foot. Then back to the multi-minute close-ups of total inactivity. If that's what you mean you are most welcome to it. When watching a 'movie' I sort of expect things on the screen to 'move'.

Philosophy. Well, I tried. But 'Stalker' just doesn't appear to contain any kind of study into the fundamental nature of knowledge, existence and reality. And I really would pass over Tarkovsky, actually just about all Russian film-makers, in favour of the group the Monty Python team recommends: Kant, Heidegger, Hume, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Schlagel, Nietzsche, Socrates, etc.

3)And I really couldn't say whether I like Tarkovsky or not. I've never met the chap, and deciding on his likeability or otherwise without such a meeting would strike me as downright presumptuous.

But disliking the man and disliking something he once did are not identical or interchangeable situations.

.

1) Well, one of the reasons for producers got their money is, advertising. The coke they drink, the cars they drive, the mobile phones they answer etc. are all (hidden)advertisement. And naturally for all those advertisements, they get money.
In second, just because "you" are not going to theaters doesn't mean "people like you" don't. There is 7 billion people on earth, and except for africa, some of those people going to theaters(and by meaning "some", it's about hundreds of millions of people). Whether they like or not.

2)For all those "funny" comments, i suggest you to read "Film History: An Introduction" by David Bordwell (newer edition = the better). These aspects are all related to "film grammer". If you ever watched a movie (which you had), you know how this "grammer" works. Maybe you can't say what you get loudly, but you "feel" the meaning hence you understand the movie. It's hard to understand something out of Hollywood, that's because your "grammer" is more familiar with Hollywood grammer.

For instance, if you shot a person/building etc. on low angle(check google about it), you make the thing you shoot stronger, bigger and more dominant. That's what we understand from the shot.
Chinese governement has build a big building(or bridge), called an european (or american can't really remember) director to shoot it, he get there, shoot the building on low angle and governement doesn't like it. They thought the building looks like it will collapse over them. So they cancelled the shooting and the presentation movie. Although the director tried to show building as a gigantic, state of art thing just by shooting it on low angle.

So if you didn't get anything from stalker, it's because you are not familiar with the grammer of russian films.

Oh btw, it doesn't mean every russian(or american/french/english etc) director has the same grammer, the world is big place and people get influenced by others.

3) I hate Tarkovsky as a director (long shots are not my likings), but as an artist, he was one of the most sophisticated. And he's dead, so you won't meet him in this life

[Steelyglint]

Should have read the post that the quoted one was replying to. I was accused of being 'part of Hollywood's prime demographic' which would make any and all like me (even if there are 7 billion of us) utterly useless to the financial hopes of directors, actors, producers, etc. They wouldn't make a single penny from our direction.

I probably have an unfamiliarity with Russian films because I'm not Russian. And as for 'grammar' (not 'grammer'), if it is the same used in Cyrillic script you're probably right. But, as mentioned, I managed to chew some meaning from 'Solaris' (with a little help from the novel), so I don't think that's the problem. I'm British, so American movies are quite foreign to me, too.

I'll stick with 'agree to disagree'.

.

[Friendliest]

Originally Posted by Steelyglint

We also have a new-ish problem on our streets. It is likely to cost several billions restructuring and shoring up footpaths to be able to take the pounding that the new breed of supermassive beach-ball people are now giving them. I know we didn't have anything like the numbers we have now before places like 'Macdonalds' and 'Burger King' (dis)graced our town and city centres.

We could fill up a 53 seater bus with them (that would be maybe 7 or 8 supermassives) and send it to some famine-ridden nation. That lot should keep the entire country fed for a good six months.

.

Wow just because we give you a little breathing room to discuss your proclivities w/r to not understanding a movie everyone else seems to love, doesn't mean we are giving you free reign to just air all your prejudices.

It's not (supposed to be) that kind of forum, tbh.

[Steelyglint]

Somebody needs to look up the definition of 'forum'.

And the bit you quote was in response to something in the OP's second post on page 1.

I'd call that 'bases covered'.

By the way, who is the 'we' you mention? You and Valve?

.

[Lowlightt]

Originally Posted by PenGun

Typical North American short attention span garbage.

The fact you would ask for someone to give you back time wasted defines your point of view.

Should have never savaged that COD guy I only did it 'cause he was mean to you. Now I'll be looking for my chance.

What? He clearly states that he watches movies of STORY ACTION OR COMEDY, which as far as I know all movies contain a bit of to some degree. The fact that he found this movie to lack all of those 3 things clearly defines his point. Randomly trying to pull you are american thus you have no attention span makes no sense to his comment.