Is this supposed to be good?

Is this supposed to be good?
So three guys wander around typical Soviet city outskirts and have 2deep4u convos that have no fucking substance. No rhyme or reason.
Did I fell for yet another meme?

Other urls found in this thread:

imdb.com/title/tt5024734/
thomas-hersey.wiki.uml.edu/file/view/Roadside+Picnic.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>no fucking substance. No rhyme or reason.

are you retarded?

Wow.

You're too stupid for movies, you should go back to video games or comics or something.

Big movies are dumber than video games and comics now, sadly.

Tarkovsky movies can definitely be pretty slow and I can see why people might not like them. I like the entire idea of the Zone, in the movie, book, and games, so it's cool seeing it in the movie, though the book's portrayal is superior.

It isn't without substance though. The entire movie is basically philosophical conversations which can be boring, I agree, but I think Tarkovsky does it pretty well. And it helps that, like I said above, I like the idea of the Zone so it taking place in there makes it enjoyable for me.

Good, but also overrated.

This movie is really pretty. The Soviets made great cameras.

>tfw to intelligent to understand CTAЛКEP

Why do you retards keep bumping this shitty bait thread?

the imagery alone makes it more worthwhile than 99% of all other movies

Does anyone have a webm of the rain passing?

mirror or stalker boys which one?

memes

...

stalker for dank kino shots
mirror for top memeories

It's wannabe 12 years old teen philosophy.

Literally the only good thing about this movie is the cinematography. Apart from it it's pure trash

But it doesn't. I love imagery but imagery won't entertain you as much as something like writing or dialogue

If you want good writing, read a book.

I see your point, but what's wrong with good imagery combined with good writing? You can place good ideas and concepts in films too. I wouldn't say film is made only to show you good imagery

>I love imagery but imagery won't entertain you
>you
Here is where you fuck up. You can have your own feelings and explain why you feel that way, but stop trying to tell other people what entertains them.

Sorry, but no everyone is smart enough to have discussions about movies.

Is Tarkovsky, dare I say it, /ourguy/?

>though the book's portrayal is superior
Please fucking kill yourself for that opinion.

>Three guys go into a mysterious zone to find a room that grant wishes

Cool, gotta watch this. After all, it is a generally well beloved movie, so how bad could it be?

>Nothing happens, and they spend half the movie philosophizing about how fucking deep everything is.

I should have known. What kind of people actually enjoy this?

Yes that's just my opinion of course. My bad if it seemed the other way

That's like saying "Sans Soleil" is just images of random people walking down the street accompanied by someone reading a rambling essay for 12th grade English class.

Wait, that's exactly what it is. Fuck.

God I hope for a great war to come and wipe out millenials.

Objectively, the novel is way better.

but then you would die too

Its a meme movie favored by reddit

I'm a trained soldier so I'd have a better chance than the slack jawed numales.

Fucking brilliant stuff that is.

the novel is always better, simply because it allows larger schemes and points to take place, movies will never be as good as book because there's not much time to prepare you for the great ending revelation in 2 hours or less

>the novel is always better
Please kill yourself for that opinion.

Shut the fuck up, /lit/ autist.

That's not an opinion, that's a fact, deal with it. Pure imagination will always allow more than a small set of frames that you can quickly get tired of

Then why can't I masturbate without looking at porn?

You don't understand the point of film. Why bother posting?

Because you masturbate too much and atrophied your capacity for imagining arousing images

No I didn't, I still fantasize about my waifu.

You know i'm right or atleast you doubt yourself, or else you wouldn't care enough to post

then what's the problem?

>It's wannabe 12 years old teen philosophy.
You don't even know what "deep" philosophy is you pseud.

Are you implying everyone who reads the same book have the same imaginative capabilities? Imagination is isn't relative. Do you not realise that book adaptations exist because people have better imaginations? There are definitely books superior to it's film adaptation, but there's almost an equal amount vice versa.

Don't you think that's hypocritical? Why would you be so adamant on defending your view point if, by your logic, you would be doubting yourself?

it's irrelevant whether i know deep philosophy or not or whether i'm a drooling retard, the philosophy in stalker is still shitty

Comparing them is like comparing an apple and a potato.

>but there's almost an equal amount vice versa
name some examples

>Don't you think that's hypocritical?
It would be if i talked in an agressive manner

you can compare everything

Actually its very relevant because you'd need to stand on both sides of the line that separates deep/good and dumb/shitty philosophy to say whether it is or isn't.

Not necessarily

First off, the novel "Roadside Picnic" is one of the greatest works of science fiction ever written.

Secondly, the so-called movie adaptation by Tarkovsky has absolutely nothing to do with the plot, characters, or theme of the book. The only discernible commonality is that they both feature something called "the zone".

The book is philosophically quite deep. The movie in contrast contains a lot of incoherent rambling. Of course, it's a different medium, so has other goals supposedly. Whatever.

>even comparing the film to roadside picnic
The central theme of the novel was about finding mankind's purpose in the face of our total insignificance (hence the title). Comparing the novels central ideas to the film's is pretty difficult.

The novel had a completely different ending to the film, though.

Tarkovsky's imagery says more than most writers' writing though. It's deliberately designed so that the medium *is* the message.

Tarkovsky's film says very, very different things.

>So three guys wander around typical Soviet city outskirts and have 2deep4u convos that have no fucking substance. No rhyme or reason
then who was phone?

This is literally a 2deep4u evangelion weebtier movie

No,only those willing to dismiss logic to aid whatever dumb point they think they're making.

>The novel had a completely different ending to the film, though.

I'm talking in general

>Tarkovsky's imagery says more than most writers' writing though. It's deliberately designed so that the medium *is* the message.

>symbolism

>Tarkovsky's film says very, very different things.

I doubt it. And even if you might think it does, i doubt it's voluntary

video game is better than the book or film

>film
>logic

How can you imply these two are related and then say the word "dumb" in the same sentence?

wow

>i have a 5 seconds attention span and hate books but i want to feel smart as well!

why don't you start working on that confidence bruhs

epic bait brotendo xD

Speaking of kino, are you fellows excited for the upcoming television adaptation?

I loved "the book". The point is that "the book" and the film are too different to be able to be compared in any meaningful way. I put "the book" in quotes because it's hard to say the film is an adaptation of the book when they share so little in content.

OK cool, so you didn't like the film. No-one's coming for your right to form an opinion on something.

gonna have to expand on that

imdb.com/title/tt5024734/

EVERYTHING is comparable

>OK cool, so you didn't like the film. No-one's coming for your right to form an opinion on something.

great!

I was not baiting.

>2017
>people still think movies are filmed theatre/literature on a screen

They are, cockrider.

>Did I fell for yet another meme?
Yeah the "my uninformed opinion on things matters" meme. Fuck off pleb.

Wow.

That poster is so goddamn ugly.

The material is relateable. It's you and your friends exploring some abandoned place. However, it has the added aspect of there being some specific reason you're there as well as the hope of some kind of solution or release at the end of the journey instead of just walking in an empty building, looking around, and then walking out.

The reason I enjoy the movie is it's taking that natural human desire to explore and see new things and wrapping it in a larger than life purpose for those actions.

Where something more true to real life would just be youths exploring a place for the fuck of it, here we are able to have people with clearer purposes while also getting to see some amazing sets.

You sound upset.

Film is a visual medium, the narrative is not the primary element.

Also preparing for a "great ending" is a sign of a supreme pleb, where you base your whole experience on the peak-end rule.
It's a sign that you don't even understand literature, let alone filmmaking.

Please end your miserable life.

Rerberg > Tarkovsky

The Strugatsy's wrote the screenplay with Tarkovsky

It's shit, play the videogame instead. That's true art.

People with common sense get through life just fine without experiencing this meandering pretentious dogshit style of 'filmmaking'.

They do that without sucking nigger cocks too but look at your own mother.

people with common sense = normies

OP, you're right and don't feel ashamed. That flick is a meme. They had a technical problem and literally lost a big portion of it so they had to reshoot it with no money.

>top of casting
>a black guy and a woman

I like how easily plebs are weeded out by this film.

Except for when the director is directing a visual narrative

That's applicable to any movie :^)

Who gives a fuck about substance when you have style lol

>I'm a trained soldier
You went to basic, you're not a soldier.

Heres the pdf of the inspiration "Roadside Picnic", good read.\

thomas-hersey.wiki.uml.edu/file/view/Roadside+Picnic.pdf

you act like a troll that wouldn't always get more replies than an actual discussion of stalker

at least people admit it's boring, because it is. even though I can enjoy random bleep sounds as a trolley makes monotone sounds as it rolls along i doubt most of Sup Forums would

I actually agree, it's one of the most overrated films i've seen. It's baby's first arthouse next to Seventh Seal.

Now, The Mirror on the other hand, that's a motherfucking masterpiece.

t. embryo

>Pure imagination will always allow more than a small set of frames that you can quickly get tired
This is objectively true
Youre a pleb or havent found ASSTR

Potatoes are literally the apples of the earth

Yes it is.

They aren't dumber than games.

Give me one blockbuster that's more redpilled, topical, argumenative, philosophical than Mankind Divided from this year.

or any blockbuster adventure beating the Witcher 3 or its DLC Hearts of Stone

You can't. Past 26 years of modern Hollywood is pure shit

Play the superior adaptation, OP.

Videogame's stories have to revolve around the gameplay though which hinders it's ability to translate as well as it could if it were just a movie. Games can have good stories but due to it's medium it makes it difficult to tell.

It's shot with a western camera.
They used Kodak film stock. They didn't have labs who could develop the film in USSR so they fucked up most of the negatives. Tarkovsky reshot the whole movie all over again.

If you watch Soljaris and wonder if those random black and white scenes were part of the artistic vision, then no. They were there because they couldn't get their hands on color film stock.

Or even better, visit Pripyat and Chernobyl. It's really fascinating.

Sure you need to play to get the story, like you need to watch a film to get the story/narrative.

>hinders it's ability to translate as well as it could if it were just a movie
I don't think so personally. Never understood this argument.

Post-modern games like MGS2 - sure. These are something that have the story and narrative tied to PLAYER as a concept and his expectations (see the first trailers for the game, the bait and switch for example), but Deus Ex series, Witcher series are not such things.

Witcher 3's Hearts of Stone DLC was the most funadventure story of the recent years I've experienced (not counting older releases across films, books, games that I've experienced) and there is just no such spirit and storytelling in modern Hollywood.

I am hopeful for James Gray's adventure film though, I very much like him and his work - tho I must admit the trailers for Lost City of Z don't look promising.


I wish I could visit the site itself. The photos I've seen and the documents make it look very interesting. Nikolaus Geyrhalter's Pripyat is my favorite doc about it