I'm kind of suprised that not many people here are comparing the new solaris with the original tarkovsky version - it seems like more people read the book but haven't seen the original movie.
To all complaints about this not being a genuine-sci-fi flick, go see the original. It is almost completely philosophical - presented in incredibly slow panaramic shots of un sci-fi scenes - the slow drive through the tunnel in the back of a taxi, the gentle, mysterious flow of weeds underwater, kris' manifested wife looking at an old russian painting on the wall of the space station. For that last scene, take note: the fascination is of an alien manifestation on a space station orbiting a distant star, and the fascination is on the PAINTING. In other words, it's the story of human life that is interesting. The only sci-fi element the original movie employed was the mystery of the planet solaris - but he showed us that everyday elements (like the before-mentioned underwater weed scene) is also completely mysterious. He treats both objects in the same way - an unflinching and unengaged slow shot of movement, with little or no non-diagetic sound. The result is one of mystery and curiosity. there is no mention of a typical science-fiction plot of explaning or exploring (or even really caring about) the alien planet. It's a vehicle for thought. And his story goes all the way to a different planet to show that such mystery is in fact very ordinary, and wrothy of inspection.
That's Tarkovsky's vision. This is not science fiction.
There's a word for this kind of behavior of sticking to an idea no matter how much reality shows it to be different, and I learned it from psychology 101: cognitive dissonance.
These lunar-tics that cannot be convinced otherwise that the moon landings are real are just like other people who stick to their beliefs through thick and thin, even if proof indicates otherwise.
How else can you explain the Catholic Church upholding the idea that the universe revolves around the earth until the late 18th c, when they announced that the geocentric view might be wrong? Remember, that wasn't a far-out notion back then as these lunar-landing deniers out there. It was considered a legitimate world-view. Wearing glasses was considered sacrilegious in the 17th century, for obscuring God's gift of pure eye-sight. That was another 'legitimate' belief.
These lunar deniers are just like everybody else, except they uphold something that is just simply too obviously silly. That's the only difference.
Re:It has more benefits than drawbacks...
on
Don't Stymie Nanotech
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Of course we can just imagine the potential devestating results of a nanotechnology breakthrough - but we've seen such things coming with every invention - even when we first discovered fire we could probably imagine the things that could be incinerated and destroyed. Every scientific breakthrough will have it's evil throwbacks; that's history. We don't have a choice to walk right straight into our doom/salvation. We could've stopped ourselves just before the Manhattan project, as Einstein himself felt tentative about releasing his theories in fear of misuse. But nanotechnology seems to be a little more versatile in it's use than, say, gunpowder or the atomic bomb - the intentions there are too obvious and restricted.
But just think of the alternative... nanotechnology is THE next breakthrough that will change how we can paint our walls and change our haircolor and have instant cosmetic surgery - no more botched nose jobs, no sir.
Then of course there's that other stuff, like nanosupercomputers and little assemblers that can be used as instant blood transfusions or rebuild organs and repair tissue. That might be nice too.
The possiblity of Salon going under is just another example why the Internet is still a difficult medium for commericial profit. I think Salon is a great newssource: it's edgy, insigthful, has guts, etc. Has anyone noticed lately how anything non-generic just isn't cutting it anymore in regards to profitability on the net?
During the dot.com boom, there was a general sense that edginess and novelty would work, but after so many sites have had to shut down, it's becoming obvious that the majority of people actually would prefer to read msn.com on the 'do's and don'ts of job interviews' or 'the top hot presents for christmas this year' than these news sources.
The fact that Salon is doing crummy financially is due to this fact, but also that those interested in this kind of alternative news are preferring to find their news for free. Sure, it's find to use free sources, but at some point it may be good to take some responsiblity and respond to these publicity issues and subscribing for that reason alone. It really is one of the better ways to show that demand for alternative media is there - numbers don't lie. Not to sound grandiose, but it's about defining again what the 'net should be used for, and showing by profit and numbers that there are people who will pay for edgy news sources, just like people subscribe to, say USAtoday for the more general stuff.
Just my two cents.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm kind of suprised that not many people here are comparing the new solaris with the original tarkovsky version - it seems like more people read the book but haven't seen the original movie.
To all complaints about this not being a genuine-sci-fi flick, go see the original. It is almost completely philosophical - presented in incredibly slow panaramic shots of un sci-fi scenes - the slow drive through the tunnel in the back of a taxi, the gentle, mysterious flow of weeds underwater, kris' manifested wife looking at an old russian painting on the wall of the space station. For that last scene, take note: the fascination is of an alien manifestation on a space station orbiting a distant star, and the fascination is on the PAINTING. In other words, it's the story of human life that is interesting. The only sci-fi element the original movie employed was the mystery of the planet solaris - but he showed us that everyday elements (like the before-mentioned underwater weed scene) is also completely mysterious. He treats both objects in the same way - an unflinching and unengaged slow shot of movement, with little or no non-diagetic sound. The result is one of mystery and curiosity. there is no mention of a typical science-fiction plot of explaning or exploring (or even really caring about) the alien planet. It's a vehicle for thought. And his story goes all the way to a different planet to show that such mystery is in fact very ordinary, and wrothy of inspection.
That's Tarkovsky's vision. This is not science fiction.
There's a word for this kind of behavior of sticking to an idea no matter how much reality shows it to be different, and I learned it from psychology 101: cognitive dissonance.
These lunar-tics that cannot be convinced otherwise that the moon landings are real are just like other people who stick to their beliefs through thick and thin, even if proof indicates otherwise.
How else can you explain the Catholic Church upholding the idea that the universe revolves around the earth until the late 18th c, when they announced that the geocentric view might be wrong? Remember, that wasn't a far-out notion back then as these lunar-landing deniers out there. It was considered a legitimate world-view. Wearing glasses was considered sacrilegious in the 17th century, for obscuring God's gift of pure eye-sight. That was another 'legitimate' belief.
These lunar deniers are just like everybody else, except they uphold something that is just simply too obviously silly. That's the only difference.
Of course we can just imagine the potential devestating results of a nanotechnology breakthrough - but we've seen such things coming with every invention - even when we first discovered fire we could probably imagine the things that could be incinerated and destroyed. Every scientific breakthrough will have it's evil throwbacks; that's history. We don't have a choice to walk right straight into our doom/salvation. We could've stopped ourselves just before the Manhattan project, as Einstein himself felt tentative about releasing his theories in fear of misuse. But nanotechnology seems to be a little more versatile in it's use than, say, gunpowder or the atomic bomb - the intentions there are too obvious and restricted. But just think of the alternative... nanotechnology is THE next breakthrough that will change how we can paint our walls and change our haircolor and have instant cosmetic surgery - no more botched nose jobs, no sir. Then of course there's that other stuff, like nanosupercomputers and little assemblers that can be used as instant blood transfusions or rebuild organs and repair tissue. That might be nice too.
The possiblity of Salon going under is just another example why the Internet is still a difficult medium for commericial profit. I think Salon is a great newssource: it's edgy, insigthful, has guts, etc. Has anyone noticed lately how anything non-generic just isn't cutting it anymore in regards to profitability on the net? During the dot.com boom, there was a general sense that edginess and novelty would work, but after so many sites have had to shut down, it's becoming obvious that the majority of people actually would prefer to read msn.com on the 'do's and don'ts of job interviews' or 'the top hot presents for christmas this year' than these news sources. The fact that Salon is doing crummy financially is due to this fact, but also that those interested in this kind of alternative news are preferring to find their news for free. Sure, it's find to use free sources, but at some point it may be good to take some responsiblity and respond to these publicity issues and subscribing for that reason alone. It really is one of the better ways to show that demand for alternative media is there - numbers don't lie. Not to sound grandiose, but it's about defining again what the 'net should be used for, and showing by profit and numbers that there are people who will pay for edgy news sources, just like people subscribe to, say USAtoday for the more general stuff. Just my two cents.