|
|
Post by LetoAtreides on Aug 27, 2006 16:49:55 GMT -5
I know this may sound a bit absurd, but what do you think about a possible sequel to STALKER? Do you have any suggestions for it? Lets make this our BIG project here! The characters don't have to be the same, except maybe for THE MAN himself. I thought about this one day as I was returning home. Would it be possible? How would the story go? CAN it be done?!?
All I can say that I sincerely hope noone in Hollywood ever tries to remake it, for that would just ruin the whole thing. But I'd like to see someone, preferably a non-American, try and make a sequel. That could be enormously interesting. Or should anyone try to do that? Give me your honest opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by MaKS on Aug 27, 2006 18:34:34 GMT -5
I don't believe it can be done in our lifetime. Only if one day we, mankind, become able to phisically revive A. T. All we can do before that is having a bit of harmless fun speculating about the sequel story. ^^ Also, i came to think that we already have an authentic A. T.'s Stalker sequel, and that is "Nostalghia". Domenico makes me think both of the Writer after his "transfiguration" (man, i like the word) and Stalker after his disappointment, as we know it all from the topic "Stalker II" (no questionmark). Domenico (spoilers, spoilers!) passes the light to Gorchakov (a writer, but obviously completely different character than the Writer) and goes to the hopeless fight to save the world. This saving the world theme continues in "Sacrifice" (even more spoilers are on the way). Those links between "Sacrifice" and other films are rather vague, and i'm uncertain if i can name it "Stalker III"... But i wonder if the hero of "Sacrifice" (what was his name...) remind us of Gorchakov from "Nostalghia", who happened to marry that italian woman after all. He has the light accepted from Domenico, and he learned to care about his son by Domenico's example, telling him (the son) a story of miracleous faith - is it our Stalker's heritage? And when he faces the need to save the world, he perform this by, well, a miracle of weirdest type i can think of. Maybe, it is God's grace; if so, of all the stalkers only the third one reaches Him. This whole three-films script is so weird, it actually can be A. T.'s idea - but maybe not, of course. phew... I know i should've post something about what i'd like to see in the hypothetical Stalker sequel, but i sort of confused myself already  so, maybe, later |
|
|
|
Post by The Ferret on Sept 7, 2006 8:18:02 GMT -5
MaKS,
It's a very poignant point, yours. Kind change the perspective to see those same movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by ledjarde on Sept 24, 2006 21:46:58 GMT -5
For the love of God, PLEASE don't even attempt any form of sequel to Stalker, even if they are merely rough ideas or treatments. To do this is to ignore and misinterpret what Stalker is: a piece of art. It stands alone as such, beyond critique. To attempt to write any form of sequel is a statement on behalf of the writer that Stalker is no more than a cinemtic commodity. Stalker is 150 minutes of refuge, a metaphorical sanctuary like all the finest art should be. It should never be subject to something as menial and token as a 'sequel'. Does the Mona Lisa have a sequel? The Eiffel Tower? Beethoven's 5th? Genuine pieces of great art should be regarded as holding a certain time and place, belonging to a particualr period, and representing all the questions (spiritual, cultural, socialogical) about that period. You cannot transpose that ethic into a subsequent period, as a sequel would need to do. The philosophy of Stalker was tied to the political and spiritual climate of the time and place it was written and produced. The film has a nautural, spiritual and metaphorical conclusion which the viewer takes away from the viewing and considers. It requires neither revision, repetition or revisiting. Like all great art, Stalker has no answers; its purpose is to set questions at their requisite depth. Please don't dilute its stance with any talk of a sequel, proposed, written or otherwise. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Ferret on Sept 25, 2006 10:28:24 GMT -5
For the love of God, PLEASE don't even attempt any form of sequel to Stalker, even if they are merely rough ideas or treatments. To do this is to ignore and misinterpret what Stalker is: a piece of art. It stands alone as such, beyond critique. To attempt to write any form of sequel is a statement on behalf of the writer that Stalker is no more than a cinemtic commodity. Stalker is 150 minutes of refuge, a metaphorical sanctuary like all the finest art should be. It should never be subject to something as menial and token as a 'sequel'. Does the Mona Lisa have a sequel? The Eiffel Tower? Beethoven's 5th? Genuine pieces of great art should be regarded as holding a certain time and place, belonging to a particualr period, and representing all the questions (spiritual, cultural, socialogical) about that period. You cannot transpose that ethic into a subsequent period, as a sequel would need to do. The philosophy of Stalker was tied to the political and spiritual climate of the time and place it was written and produced. The film has a nautural, spiritual and metaphorical conclusion which the viewer takes away from the viewing and considers. It requires neither revision, repetition or revisiting. Like all great art, Stalker has no answers; its purpose is to set questions at their requisite depth. Please don't dilute its stance with any talk of a sequel, proposed, written or otherwise. Thank you. I totally agree with Led here (welcome aboard anyway), I couldn't have said it better... I think 'STALKER' does a full circle in the end, or at least there's a resolution of some sort, and a sequel would waste all the mystery and the unsolved beautiness of the original. To me, it's blasphemy, and I'm glad that Tarkovsky didn't succeed... ... but am I really glad? And if Tarkovsky would have filmed a sequel 1000 times better than the original from every point of view? ( impossible, but Tarkovsky was the king of the impossible). Then... ... then, of course, 'STALKER' is the pinnacle of human art. So, let's stop to fantasize about impossible "better sequels". The Ferret |
|
|
|
Post by Pauk on Sept 25, 2006 13:17:54 GMT -5
Well, I'm to be crucified. Stalker is a film. A pretty good one, though. No pile of steel it is. By the way, be prepared - if They succeed in making a Picnic film, they will for sure come after Stalker as well.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Ferret on Sept 25, 2006 14:51:25 GMT -5
Well, I'm to be crucified. Stalker is a film. A pretty good one, though. No pile of steel it is. By the way, be prepared - if They succeed in making a Picnic film, they will for sure come after Stalker as well. Tell me it's only a dream. No, no, don't tell me. Let's crucify him.  |
|
maiga
Outborder
The Mantis
Posts: 5 
|
Post by maiga on Sept 26, 2006 5:00:52 GMT -5
No, turn his legs to jelly!  Did you see what they did to the dude in ' Andrei Rublev'? With the molten gold from the church treasure and the Tartar horseman? Ouch, that *HAD* to hurt! Seriously- I've think I've just switched off from the Hollywood re-make/sequel machine for the last time with the piss-poor re-make of "Wicker Man". They could make a great sequel to "Stalker" (as if...) and I probably wouldn't even watch it... |
|
|
|
Post by The Ferret on Sept 26, 2006 6:13:55 GMT -5
No, turn his legs to jelly! Seriously- I've think I've just switched off from the Hollywood re-make/sequel machine for the last time with the piss-poor re-make of "Wicker Man". They could make a great sequel to "Stalker" (as if...) and I probably wouldn't even watch it... Mantis is right on this. What's the purpose? 'STALKER' doesn't need either a remake or a sequel. Even if the sequel would come out as a decent movie, I'm not interested. Anyway, 'ROADSIDE PICNIC' is gonna be the true movie adaptation of the original 1972 novel, so we're talking about a different breed here. 'STALKER' is the terrific full depiction of Tarkovsky's inner universe, his "window" opened on the original novel. It's not a movie adptation, but a stand-alone opus in its own right. |
|
|
|
Post by MaKS on Sept 26, 2006 20:26:21 GMT -5
I think the discussion drifted off topic here. (Not really, but in a way. It's a shame there's so many "Stalker II" threads.) We may despise possible sequels, but it doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't enjoy a good speculative script. It's the same matter as poems or hypothesises. No need to pretend a theory is Tarkovsky's own vision; no need to pretend a script is an actual upcoming sequel, not at all.
I think of those things in general as of a way to share visions and opinions in certain form. This form can be rational, as in a theory, or imaginative, as in a poem. It is very possible we also may need something inbetween to connect our rational thinking and poetic impression, and a free sequel script (or a prequel script, or a story) can become a good form for it.
I found Malishas' example inspiring and will probably make another attempt in this genre, if accomplish it in a decent time. (Also, ph3ar my English skill ^^)
|
|
|
|
Post by The Ferret on Sept 27, 2006 5:43:32 GMT -5
Hamster,
There are only two 'Stalker II' threads so far. Anyway, to a certain extent, I agree with you. Interesting opinion. Hope there will be more and more fan fiction in the next months, because I like it to death.
Are you writing?
|
|
|
|
Post by MaKS on Sept 28, 2006 16:25:09 GMT -5
I wrote a bit, made notes, then stuck, then moved to another city... Will see if there's anything decent come out.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Ferret on Sept 28, 2006 17:39:18 GMT -5
I wrote a bit, made notes, then stuck, then moved to another city... Will see if there's anything decent come out. I-WANT- IT-SO- BAD! (paraphrasing the Beatles). |
|
|
|
Post by mingus8 on Nov 3, 2006 15:05:07 GMT -5
You know a stalker 2 would be great but it would have to be set in Britain it would have to be of similar circumstances ie the aliens create a zone and people have to go in to check it out have epiphanies etc ... maybe shot in the same way as the old quatermass films no pathos though and no rugged heros ... just very ordinary people trying to comprehend what is going on in the middle of there town ...the key to the success of the original movie was that Tarkovsky played it all down ... the wonderful disused power plant thay shot it in was wonderful in its decay...the way everything was over grown ...this could be done here in Britain most inner cities are like that anyway !!...true its not attractive to try and redo the original ... whats the point ... but a sequel ...another part to the story how people would react to something so abstract appearing in there back yard ... I would find very interesting ...the zone was always an escape for the stalker ... the new film could perhaps show us how one becomes a stalker and eventually feels that freedom ...id go and see it anyway ...I liked the remake of solaris... George Clooneys finest hour ...modern tech could make some amazing but subtle effects...and the soundtrack could be amazing ...get JG Ballard to write the screenplay ...Im sure he would be up for it !
|
|
|
|
Post by The Ferret on Nov 4, 2006 10:14:49 GMT -5
Mingus, Not that bad. I would like to see how a "person" becomes a Stalker too; I'm interested in the whole process. I like your beautiful expression: "and people have to go in to check it out have epiphanies" Nobody ever espressed about the Zone in those terms, kudos!  Anyway, in the movie is pretty clear that the Zone is one and only. Plus, London is a "too crowded" place, and a "Zone" would be hard to contain or declare off-limits. |
|
so, maybe, later
