Not according to the author of the book:

> "...to my best knowledge, the book was not dedicated to erotic problems of people in outer space... As Solaris' author I shall allow myself to repeat that I only wanted to create a vision of a human encounter with something that certainly exists, in a mighty manner perhaps, but cannot be reduced to human concepts, ideas or images. This is why the book was entitled Solaris and not Love in Outer Space."

— Stanislaw Lem, 2002

Point is, if Sodeburgh wanted to make "Love in Outer Space" he shouldn't have called it Solaris.

'Rosencranz and Guildenstern Are Dead' is brilliant... and look -- they didn't call it 'Hamlet.'

The whole point of the original story was THE PLANET.

It's alive, or at the very least it's sentient. It wants to communicate.

So badly, in fact, it's poking around in our primitive minds, making replicas of our loved ones hoping we will communicate back.

I'll never understand how such a talented filmmaker could write and direct a version of this story and 100% completely miss the point.

This isn't a love story in space. It's not about a guy falling in love with a ghost.

Sodeburgh's movie left out Solaris.

How?!

It's right there in the title!

Had a professor in college teach that Dracula, crawling out a window and down the side of a building head-first ( or "inverted" as it was described in the book) was symbolic of his homosexuality, because the term for it in those days was "sexually inverted."

I just stared back at her, wondering if she'd ever seen a spider crawl down a wall butt-first.