Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Philip K. Dick: Stanisław Lem Is a Communist Committee (2015)

culture.pl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 215 posts

Re: Philip K. Dick: Stanisław Lem Is a Communist Committee (2015)

#171

Post by DonHopkins »

gambiting wrote: post #80
DonHopkins wrote: post #50

An EPIC scene from "The Congress" (2014) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMMI8HWhqEc The Congress (2013) Scan Scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPAl5GwvdY8 HN thread about "Bruce Willis Sells Deepfake Likeness Rights So His 'Twin' Can Star in Movies" and The Congress discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33044479 >According to director Ari Folman, some elements of the film were inspired by the science…

I love Lem's work and I can't stand this film lol, it's just.....complete nonsense. And yeah, I have never done psychodelics, maybe that's why.

Makes perfect sense to me! ;)

THE CONGRESS - Entering The Animation Zone - Film Clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pqzaZcivh4

THE CONGRESS clip1- Miramount Nagasaki Lobby:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPGhw4nACfk

This actually explains it pretty well:

The Congress - Escape from Reality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ1hFKDCpd8

Re: Philip K. Dick: Stanisław Lem Is a Communist Committee (2015)

#172

Post by cubefox »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #91
KingOfCoders wrote: post #12

Love Lem, especially The Futurological Congress

Talk about mind bending. By the way, there’s a movie somewhat based on it with Harvie Cartell. Worth a watch.

I'm really not a "the book is better than the movie" guy, but here I really think the movie isn't very good in comparison. It doesn't even have much to do with the book, and it loses all the intelligent humor of the original. The book is a very light short read and hilarious. The perfect introduction to Lem.

Re: Philip K. Dick: Stanisław Lem Is a Communist Committee (2015)

#173

Post by coldtea »

bawolff wrote: post #120
TeaBrain wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the book title is great, but I've never understood the fawning over the movie. The art design is great, but the movie script turned a contemplative story into a generic thriller with a unique aesthetic.

Its mostly hailed as a great artsy movie, that general audiences find super boring. I think its asethetic & art design is what its hailed for. Nobody hails bladerunner for its pacing. Its hard to be good at everything. Being really good at one aspect is enough to get people to fawn. I disagree on the contemplative bit. I think both are quite contemplative but in very different ways.

>Its mostly hailed as a great artsy movie, that general audiences find super boring

You make it sound like some obscure arthouse. It's one of the most influence movies of all time, art design and worldbuilding wise.

It just didn't catch on at the box office in its time. Way more serious and slower paced movies have been big hits, so it's not being "artsy" that's the problem.

Sci-fi wasn't much of a win with adults at the time, and unlike Star Wars this was an adult oriented movie.

>Nobody hails bladerunner for its pacing.

You'd be surpised.

Re: Philip K. Dick: Stanisław Lem Is a Communist Committee (2015)

#174

Post by zorked »

bawolff wrote: post #120
TeaBrain wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the book title is great, but I've never understood the fawning over the movie. The art design is great, but the movie script turned a contemplative story into a generic thriller with a unique aesthetic.

Its mostly hailed as a great artsy movie, that general audiences find super boring. I think its asethetic & art design is what its hailed for. Nobody hails bladerunner for its pacing. Its hard to be good at everything. Being really good at one aspect is enough to get people to fawn. I disagree on the contemplative bit. I think both are quite contemplative but in very different ways.

Blade Runner passed the test of not making my children pick up the phone while watching it.

Very few movies do that.

Re: Philip K. Dick: Stanisław Lem Is a Communist Committee (2015)

#175

Post by [deleted] »

1oooqooq wrote: post #126
noisefridge wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious why you like these so much as titles. Tastes differ, but in my opinion, "A Scanner Darkly" is the only standout winner here. Without knowing anything of what the story was about, would "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" convey anything important to the reader? Even as a standalone metaphor it's confused: humans don't dream about sheep! There is an old trope of counting sheep to fall asleep, but that's…

maybe because English is my third language, but i always loathed the scanner darkly title. so empty and try-hard.

[deleted]

Re: Philip K. Dick: Stanisław Lem Is a Communist Committee (2015)

#176

Post by zorked »

gopher_space wrote: post #138
1oooqooq wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe because English is my third language, but i always loathed the scanner darkly title. so empty and try-hard.

It’s a reference to a biblical passage. 1 Corinthians 13:12, "For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then we shall see face to face". There wasn’t any clear glass back in Paul’s day. Looking through glass meant that your vision was obscured.

It's the "scanner" that I had a problem with. A device to turn printed media into PDFs... but darkly?

Re: Philip K. Dick: Stanisław Lem Is a Communist Committee (2015)

#177

Post by zorked »

psittacus wrote: post #7
thrance wrote: post #4

2 years prior, in 1972, Andrei Tarkovsky adapted Stanisław Lem's Solaris to the big screen in the Soviet Union, which may have contributed to Dick's paranoia. Anyway, the film's a masterpiece that I highly recommend, and since it was published before 1975 it is not subject to copyright. You can find it on YouTube [1]. [1] https://youtu.be/Z8ZhQPaw4rE

There's also a great documentary on Stanislaw Lem. It's in Polish, but with English subtitles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wQq4aKldaw Lem himself talks about the movie a bit there too, around the 24th minute. He didn't seem fond of Tarkowsky's religiousness and the impact it had on the movie. Timestamped link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wQq4aKldaw&t=1434 My impression was similar — the movie seems to be a…

It's interesting that Tarkowsky himself didn't like the movie either.

Authors are a bit too involved emotionally to judge movies that are based on their books though. It reveals to them that the interpretation that readers make of their books or their interest in it may not be what the author intended.

Re: Philip K. Dick: Stanisław Lem Is a Communist Committee (2015)

#178

Post by thinkingemote »

DonHopkins wrote: post #171
gambiting wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love Lem's work and I can't stand this film lol, it's just.....complete nonsense. And yeah, I have never done psychodelics, maybe that's why.

Makes perfect sense to me! ;) THE CONGRESS - Entering The Animation Zone - Film Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pqzaZcivh4 THE CONGRESS clip1- Miramount Nagasaki Lobby: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPGhw4nACfk This actually explains it pretty well: The Congress - Escape from Reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ1hFKDCpd8

I'm also a fan of the movie. It deserves a re-watch.

As a slow burner / future cult classic it's about the same as ExistenZ another of my favourites.

Re: Philip K. Dick: Stanisław Lem Is a Communist Committee (2015)

#179

Post by coldtea »

parineum wrote: post #70
noisefridge wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious why you like these so much as titles. Tastes differ, but in my opinion, "A Scanner Darkly" is the only standout winner here. Without knowing anything of what the story was about, would "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" convey anything important to the reader? Even as a standalone metaphor it's confused: humans don't dream about sheep! There is an old trope of counting sheep to fall asleep, but that's…

Isn't the point of a title to get someone to read the book (and not be disappointed by it's contents)? I get you don't want to name a crime novel like a self help book but the title of the book is really just going to get me to pick it up off the shelf and read the back, not assume the narrative style and complete plot of the book. Book titles are click bait and always have been.

>Isn't the point of a title to get someone to read the book (and not be disappointed by it's contents)?

For marketing departments maybe. For authors it's supposed to be a fitting name for their novel.

Re: Philip K. Dick: Stanisław Lem Is a Communist Committee (2015)

#180

Post by [deleted] »

0_____0 wrote: post #37
bookofjoe wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>... terrible at titles... I disagree. Here are some that retain their power all these decades later and will likely do so for the foreseeable future: Time Out of Joint The Man in the High Castle Martian Time-Slip The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch Clans of the Alphane Moon The Simulacra Now Wait for Last Year Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968)/Blade Runner (1982) Ubik We Can Build You Flow My Tears, The…

They do retain their power because of the notoriety of the stories they head. It's a matter of taste and thus hard to argue, but I do think his titles were kind of clunky. Can you imagine if Blade Runner retained the title of the work it was derived from?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN