I'll still watch it. I have no shame.
(only on cheap $2 dvd night that is)
Taking into account Travolta's dubious scientology and his crappy sci-fi attempt of Battlefield Earth, I smell a big SHIT in the air.
I'll still watch it. I have no shame.
(only on cheap $2 dvd night that is)
most of the people I know NEVER ever heard of the Tarkovski version or if they heard of it acutally NEVER watched it. maybe somebody will pick up the book or watch the old movie if this comes out and proofs (what I predict) to be shit.
apart from that......I wish them failure on all levels
Well, adaptation of Solaris with Clooney wasn't bad actually. But when I think about it, bad RP adaptation would hurt the original material so badly that people wouldn't be curious about it. If the adaptation was good, more people would be interested in the novel and that's a good thing.
The only thing I have against it is Travolta, we shall see how the script goes...
tarkovski's solaris and soderbergh's solaris have nothing in common. that's why it worked. let's hope for this one too because the orig.STALKER did not follow the book closely (just as Tarkovskis Solaris ommitted many things from the book). But like always I fear the "true to the original" adaptation technique by the US that so often turns books into bad movies 'cause the book was not meant to be experienced on film. taking liberties and finding the essence in it will be hard for any good director without repeating the old movie or using SF cliches. well, i don't have fear, STALKER is for me such an exceptional movie that nothing could taint that. NO commercial american director would have the balls to even remotely make an anti-climatic/anti-action movie like this.
I bet we'll have lots of CGI effects, showing alien spacecrafts flying around and stuff.
I have the DVD of Tarkovski's version, and those are the images that I'll always associate with RP. But most likely, I'll still watch the new version too
I've only read a dodgy fan translation on the web (for some reason book was hard to find until recently in UK, waiting for friend to finish his SF masterworks copy so I can re-read), but as far as I can recall a hollywood version of roadside picnic starring John Travolta would be an even worse idea than a hollywood version of I am legend starring Will Smith. I mean, hard-bitten, hard-drinking nihilistic sc-fi starring a pudgy and quite crazy scientologist? I bet he thinks the book is some kind of fucking thetan parable or something, the batshit cunt.
Travolta as who though? If it's Red, then sure it'll be awful. But he could be some army asshole. That'd be fine.
The book has potential to be way more eventful than Tarkovsky's version. I wouldn't mind seeing choppers attacked by burning fluff (or was it burnt fuzz?) or crushed by mosquito mange. That'd be cool.
Don't really know how they're going to structure it though. Half the point of the book was the changes to the way the Zone is dealt with over time and the people involved. How it all goes from anarchic mess to more regimented control and how neither of them are much fun. I can't really see them doing that structure justice.
Most likely it will be a real-time adventure trip following a standard dramatic mold, supplemented by two or three short pseudo-philosophical dialogues to please the critics. But even that can be done in style. Who's up for Black&White material? Not in the comic/music video style of Sin City, rather a neo-noir thing. But then questions arise : would it fit the theme, isn't neo-noir style profanated enough, would be a combo of BW/color picture a smart hommage to the visual style of Tarkovsky's Stalker or would it look like a cheap plagiarism... all depends on director.
What's up with the size of Travolta's head? I swear it's twice the size it was back in the Kotter days.
I've barely fired up the game once, I'm afraid, but I read the novella years ago. I haven't watched the Tarkovsky movie, either.
Still, I'd like to draw attention to a couple of items gleaned from the Hollywood.com listing.
First - a personality like Travolta working with a relatively unknown director like David Jacobson may spell bad news. Have any of you watched any of Jacobson's movies?
Secondly - Notice that in addition to the Strugatsky brothers, there are eight screenwriters credited already. What the hell do you think they might have done to the story? The setting?
Thirdly, Colombia TriStar just might want to push this as a bigass blockbusting hit... or they might not. It remains to be seen. In any case, the fact that the big studio invests in the movie indicates that there will be considerable production value. Which might be good. Or bad.
I've watched the Tarkovsky movie. Really, it's a bit hard to follow if you are missing the subtle jabs at society which spot the film. I have the Russian version and I may post a sample. Personally, I LOVED it.
Another element, the "out of sync" scenes, may be even harder to follow and may be cut out of the new version.
It's way too early in development to make any predictions at all as to the quality/treatment of the source. Hollywood.com only lists one cast member, and the previously mentioned eight screenwriters (including the Glen Morgan & James Wong duo, and the inestimable Rob Cohen) indicate that it's a project that's changed hands quite a few times. Factor in that IMDB is only offering information about it to IMDBpro subscribers, and it boils down to not even being in pre-production at this point.
i hope it fails. sry john
To be honest, I wasn't impressed by Tarkovskiy's movie much. I do go in for art-house movies, and I liked his Solaris very much, but not Stalker. Even though I usually like "slow", anti-action movies, it was TOO meditative for my taste I guess. But I loved the ambient electronic music of Artemiev, it was very unusual for the time when it was released (1979?)
John Travolta's IMDb page shows nothing about Roadside Picnic as far as I can see, and also it's almost impossible to find anything solid about whether it's actually being made.
I doubt it.
If it's solid or not I'll leave up to you gentlefolks to judge, but the googling of the query "Roadside Picnic 2008" led to an IMDbPRO cached page which I can't access, but which seems to at least have some inkling of the plot, and a Variety article two summers old about Columbia TriStar having signed David Jacobson for writing and directing the project. Also, Neal H. Moritz has a string of announced, but unproduced movie titles on his Hollywood.com page.
If the bit about the signing is true, I wonder who needs to demand their money back.
In before mothra says he hopes this movie will fail, for the third time on the same page. When he's made his mind up to have a stupid opinion about something, by God, he sticks to it!
henke: your post is so off-topic it beats even my useless posts
The world and the internet always get swarmed by idiots running after some fad or other. If it isn't this movie, it's that game or some meme. I'd rather have a good movie than not have it, and who gives a fuck if idiots then use it as an opportunity to be idiots? I'm sorry, mothra, but if you can't learn to ignore idiots, then you might as well move to Antarctica. What other people may or may not enjoy shouldn't influence your own enjoyment.
Last edited by Thirith; 4th Jun 2008 at 08:46.
I really doubt this will be a quality film at all. It'll probably end up like Tomb Raider. I've seen Tarkovsky's Stalker and it has become my favorite out of all his films. Hollywood on the other hand produces nothing but shit or the occasional cheap re-makes, they pretty much butcher the plot and sensationalize the film. To use a fine example, Ring(Ringu) is the only horror movie I ever liked and Hollywood just had to make a re-make which sucked.
Oh please, let's just wait and see you naysayers and Hollywood-haters by default.
Yes, Tarkovski's movies are art and all and blah blah, but Lem didn't like his Solaris movie and to me it never ever matches his book either. Some people never dare to dismiss Tarkovski's work and are keen to point their finger to Hollywood no matter what. Tarkovski's Stalker movie is self pretentious, flat, dull and boring. Again, no match for the Strugatzki novel. But of course the "connaisseur" would never admit that in public. It's actually nothing but a sequence of images. Meanings and layers are only found - or rather projected into - in this movie by the viewer who has read the book. An interesting concept but by no means a good film.
I also don't see why anyone wants to take Travolta's Scientology crap into account. He's an actor, this will be an act. So what? And american film makers know their craft and maybe they turn the zone into something really wonderful and mystique.