Russian Sci-Fi - it just doesn't make the cut

[riddler 0]

Just spent three hours watching "Stalker", most of which was three bald guys moving cautiously through natural and urban settings, arguing about who should go first. There was quite a bit of pontificating about the nature of mankind, and the motivations for our deepest desires. Outside of one cheap parlor trick at the end, there were no special effects, no one got hurt, no gooey aliens, some vague religious references, and a lot of unnecessary slow-motion pans and zooms.

It reminded me of Solaris, with it's 10-minute driving-on-the-highway scenes, lots of people talking, and the entire budget blown on one cheesy effect.

Why is this stuff considered good Sci-Fi? I'm sure the books were great, but these films are like three hours of foreplay and no happy ending. Deeply unsatisfying.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[quade 4]

Has it ever occurred to you that it's a definition problem?

"Your" sci-fi isn't "their" sci-fi? In fact, based on a previous thread by you, your definition doesn't match up with a lot of folks. It's a great big wide world out there and if your definition of things is as specific as yours, my guess is that you'll be disappointed quite a bit.

Why IS your definition so specific anyway?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[riddler 0]

Quote

Has it ever occurred to you that it's a definition problem?
"Your" sci-fi isn't "their" sci-fi?

I'm convinced it is a definition problem, but more about movies and books. I see films as a visual/sound/dialogue medium, with some room for philosophy. Sci-Fi, in particular, uses strong visualization and sound, while limiting ideology to just a few concepts. I see books as a dialogue/philosophy medium with some room for visualization (but not sound) - in Sci-Fi books, you can make loads of philosophy, and no one complains.

I think the Russian directors spend too much time trying to put books onto filmstock, which results in tedium and impotency in their productions. Well, that, and the lack of money - maybe James Cameron needs to throw a few million at one of these guys just to see what they can do with a real budget.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy foreign films immensely. I just don't get non-Western Sci-Fi. But this movie sold 4.3 million tickets in Russia, so it must make sense to them.

I hope I'm not disappointed tomorrow with TOO much visualization

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[quade 4]

Never bet against James Cameron.

As for talking vs. motion. Yeah, they're called MOTION pictures for a reason and, like the old saying goes, talk is cheap.

That said, there are plenty of good films that have a combination of both. However, as I recall you're previous definition of sci-fi was very specific about the number of alien worlds, space craft and other items seen, which I think a LOT of folks would disagree with.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Has it ever occurred to you that it's a definition problem?

"Your" sci-fi isn't "their" sci-fi? In fact, based on a previous thread by you, your definition doesn't match up with a lot of folks. It's a great big wide world out there and if your definition of things is as specific as yours, my guess is that you'll be disappointed quite a bit.

Why IS your definition so specific anyway?

This from the BIGGEST movie Whiner on Dizzy

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[Misternatural 0]

I've got to agree with you on Solaris-that was a big WTF! the trailer was the most entertaining part of that film. The rest was filler- basically a Clooney covered chick flick set in a futuristic environment. I think some people actually did die of boredom watching that.

You have to remember the basic premise of making box office sellers is ...the selling.

Film making is an art because even though a producer or director has a formula that they use to repeat success it's a real trick to try to predict what people will respond to.

Hopefully the critics are a decent filter to determine where to spend your money but who knows what politics are involved in that game.
The best line I heard all year was in Knocked Up; "yeah, this is Hollywood... we don't like liars"

I think the Russians you speak of enjoy a more esoteric artsy cerebral film while Americans like to mix in a little more action...Remember Kubricks- 2001? there was a fucking line down the street when that one came out. also Altered States? that one had people waiting around the block to get in as I recall.

but If you rent those expecting something like The Matrix or Blade Runner or Alien you would have been let down.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[SpeedRacer 1]

Yeah, I saw Stalker too.

It just sort of went on & on, and I sat there expecting something, ANYTHING, to happen. It never did though.

They kept leading up to this idea that they were going to an INCREDIBLY dangerous place! But nothing happens!! There's some mundane philosophising conversation by some of the characters towards the end. Whoopty doo.

And yes, I saw the original Solaris as well. Lots of filler in that movie too.

Never saw the Clooney remake.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[riddler 0]

Quote

've got to agree with you on Solaris-that was a big WTF! the trailer was the most entertaining part of that film. The rest was filler- basically a Clooney covered chick flick set in a futuristic environment. I think some people actually did die of boredom watching that.

I haven't seen the new Solaris, yet, but it's in my Netflix queue. I was referring to the old one. It'll be interesting to see which one is worse

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[riddler 0]

Quote

However, as I recall you're previous definition of sci-fi was very specific about the number of alien worlds

I wasn't that specific All I ask for is at least two different places (one can be Earth, so it's really just one other world, but Star Wars has like 10 worlds they actually go to). One other planet or place, one spaceship, some religious undertone to make the story interesting, and preferably leave out the love story.

I don't think that's too much to ask for in Sci-Fi. It's kinda like you gotta have a fast car in an action movie, an old master and a "book of secret styles" in a kung-fu movie, and a wise-cracking supporting actor in a comedy.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[quade 4]

Quote

This from the BIGGEST movie Whiner on Dizzy

I, sir, am a professional.

Whiners Local 369 - "You make it, we'll chat about it."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SpeedRacer 1]

so I've been surfing the web & finding all these reviews from people saying that STALKER was a masterpiece & that Tarkovsky is a genius.

Did anyone here like it, and if so, why?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Just spent three hours watching "Stalker", most of which was three bald guys moving cautiously through natural and urban settings, arguing about who should go first. There was quite a bit of pontificating about the nature of mankind, and the motivations for our deepest desires. Outside of one cheap parlor trick at the end, there were no special effects, no one got hurt, no gooey aliens, some vague religious references, and a lot of unnecessary slow-motion pans and zooms.

It may reflect the nature of Russian films in general? They tend to be dark. Most of the ones I've seen are characterized by "pontificating on the nature of mankind" and rarely have happy endings. One might speculate that there's a tendency to channel Dostoevsky. (Which makes me wonder who American filmmakers 'channel'? Thoughts ... Quade?)

While it's not Sci-Fi, if you're interested in action and special effects in Russian films, have you looked at the Night Watch and Day Watch films?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[SpeedRacer 1]

Have you seen Stalker?

I can appreciate dark movies & strange, avant-garde films.

But this movie had long stretches where nothing much happens. It's 3 hours long and aside from the initial scene with getting shot at by the guards, NOTHING happens!

Yet all the time the Stalker guy is trying to impress on how DANGEROUS the Zone is. At some points he's got a handkerchief with steel bolts tied up in it, and he throws it ahead of them as if to see if the path is booby trapped.

NOTHING HAPPENS. There isn't any convincing evidence of danger at all.

There's 3 guys: The Scientist, The Writer, and the Stalker. Representing Science, Art, and Faith, I suppose.

I guess I need to see it again, but when I got it at the video store it seemed to build up the film as being intense.

I rented it because I was intrigued by the blurb on back of the DVD:

Quote

The film follows three men -- the Scientist (Nikolai Grinko), the Writer (Anatoliy Solonitsyn), and the Stalker (Alexander Kaidanovsky) -- as they travel through a mysterious and forbidden territory in the Russian wilderness called the "Zone." In the Zone, nothing is what it seems. Objects change places, the landscape shifts and rearranges itself. It seems as if an unknown intelligence is actively thwarting any attempt to penetrate its borders. In the Zone, there is said to be a bunker, and in the bunker: a magical room which has the power to make wishes come true. The Stalker is the hired guide for the journey who has, through repeated visits to the Zone, become accustomed to its complex traps, pitfalls, and subtle distortions. Only by following his lead (which often involves taking the longest, most frustrating route) can the Writer and the Scientist make it alive to the bunker and the room.

This is misleading to say the least.

Nothing really out of the ordinary happens. And there is no evidence of danger or weird transformations of the scenery, or traps, or an intelligence controlling things, or ANYTHING!!

I saw it over 8 years ago, so maybe I need to give it a second chance, but that was my impression at the time.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 4]

Quote

(Which makes me wonder who American filmmakers 'channel'? Thoughts ... Quade?)

I think it depends greatly on what time period, genre and company you're talking about. I think it also depends on whether or not you're actually talking about "Big H Hollywood" or "Indies."

At one time Dreamworks desperately wanted to be the new Disney. Crap like that. Recently Disney wanted to be the 2D version of Pixar. Well, they bought Pixar and made its head, John Lassiter, in charge of all animation, so now the story gets emphasized more rather than the silly "Broadway" songs (although you still apparently have to have a Princess).

The main thing to remember about Hollywood movies are they are "show business" where you acknowledge that "show" is the adjective and "business" is the noun. Much like skydiving, you don't get to do it a lot more times if you're not very successful at it in terms of return on investment. While John Travolta might have survived "Battlefield Earth" a LOT of the other people that worked on it didn't. So, financial success is really what's driving a lot of decisions in Hollywood.

Go down a level or two into little Hollywood or Indies and you'll see a lot more chances taken. I'm still not certain you're going to find a single storyteller the majority are channeling if you could even get folks to admit they're doing anything but being entirely original (which clearly most aren't). Tarantino will do homage to any one of a number of directors, but the reality is it's all him. A number of people will try to rip him off but do it clumsily.

Still, if you wanted to say who among all people American film makers were probably influenced by, it probably comes down to a few esoteric theorists that are talked about in film schools and are a source for the common language used within the industry to describe things; Joseph Campbell, Dara Marks, John Truby, Syd Field and Blake Snyder.

Either that or the writer saw a fart joke on the internet and decided to do 110 pages on it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

While it's not Sci-Fi, if you're interested in action and special effects in Russian films, have you looked at the Night Watch and Day Watch films?

Was going to mention those. Fantastic, innovative use of good SFX on a very limited budget. Hollywood probably couldn't film one explosion for what it cost these guys to do the whole film. Don't expect the plot to make much sense,* but just go with the (really wierd) flow and enjoy it.




* As always, in this respect, the books (Sergey Lukyanenko) are far, far superior, but the films do make up for that in their own way.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?