Which one is better?

Which one is better?
My vote goes for Solaris.

They are two different movies exploring different things.
Comparing them should be a crime since they are both movies we will never get again.
I suggest you watch solaris with the commentary track since it mentions Tarkovsky opinions on 2001.

Solaris is a better movie, 2001 is far more impressive visually but is narratively and emotionally dead.

2001, I never got the comparison between the two except muh Cold War narrative which is bizarre as both directors saw themselves as outside their countries respective military industrial complex.

I think Solaris is Tarkovsky's worst film though and 2001 one of Kubrick's best so to me the comparison is even weirder in that sense.

2001: A Space Odyssey – 1968
Solaris – 1972

guess what is a masterpiece and what is a rip off

Solaris is a great film but 2001, IMHO, is maybe the greatest film ever made.

Silly to compare films just bcos they share a genre, though.

>emotionally dead
Literally the point. Fuck off, cuck.

This desu

However, I think of all the films/directors that were inspired by 2001 maybe Solaris/Tarkovsky is the best to come after it.

Except if you actually have seen any of the movies you would know that in the soviet union import of foreign movies was banned and Tarkovsky was called by the American ambassador on a special screening after production of the movie Solaris was complete.
Wikipedia only goes so far buddy.
Next time watch a movie or two before shitposting

considering 2001 isnt a movie its was just a front to fake the Moon Landings this isnt really a fair comparison.

>Solaris is a better movie, 2001 is far more impressive visually but is narratively and emotionally dead.


The funny thing about people saying this about these films is that in every other instance the reason I'm told were supposed to like Tarkovsky above other directors but especially Kubrick in my experience as I'm an admitted Kubrick fanboy is that Tarkovsky is unparalleled in terms of cinematography. I don't want people to get the wrong idea from this post as I think Tarkovsky does deserve a lot of the praise he gets for that but I just want to note the irony that Kubrick's supposedly hollow film is inferior because he focused on visuals and cinematography in his science fiction film rather than melodrama.

I doubt that the soviet censorship allowed tarshitsky to see 2001

He/they saw it and Solaris was their supposed ''answer'' to it, lad.

That is simply not true.
You dont seem to know what communism means.

Okay kid don't Google it and don't read anything about where Tarkovsky gives a critique on 2001 (a film you think he never saw) during the making of Solaris.

its in the Criterion Collection commentary track.
i dont have to google shit,you have to watch the movies first before reading about them on Wikipedia.

>The following conversation is from an interview by Naum Abramov with Andrei Tarkovsky that took place in 1970 while the great Russian director was working on his adaptation of Stanislaw Lem’s novel Solaris. Initially billed in America as the Soviet Union’s reply to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), at first glance, both films share similar concerns in exploring mankind’s unsettled role in the universe and the consequences of detachment from his natural habitat. However, it’s evident that each film’s view on space, and mankind’s role within it, are quite different

It wont let be post the article cos the system thinks I'm spam. Just Google your own shit lad.

As I said partial shit from Wikipedia.
You really need to grow up

From the 1970 interview:
>TARKOVSKY: For some reason, in all the science-fiction films I’ve seen, the filmmakers force the viewer to examine the details of the material structure of the future. More than that, sometimes, like Kubrick, they call their own films premonitions. It’s unbelievable! Let alone that 2001: A Space Odyssey is phoney on many points even for specialists.

Yeah sure, he never saw it before he made Solaris kek

What is making you so angry here? The fact Tarkovsky saw 2001 or what? I don't get it.

2001 is better from an artistic and aesthetic (not referring to visuals only) point of view easily, Solaris has an overall better story but that's just because of the book it's based on

Is Solaris a good place to start with Tarkovsky?

Ivan's Childhood is a better start point imo

Stalker is very accessible I think, but Solaris works too.

Solaris is good as things can only improve from there

While I agree that Stalker is accessible I don't think you want to blow one of his best films out first. It would be like watching Michael Bay's The Rock first and then having the rest of his filmography to go from there.

guess what, that's a lie, and you swallowed it. cinema is filled with lies just like any other field

On a film making level, 2001 wins, hands down
On a thematic level, I like solaris as 2001 is little more then an interesting "what if" story