华裔阐释《流浪地球》中的愚公移山精神 评论区反思西方“探索精神”深藏的游牧思维
[中字] The Wandering Earth: How to Tell a Chinese Story | Video Essay
译文简介
评论区大神频出，有人对比中式思维，聊了自己对于西方依然保留的《出埃及记》所包含的移民和开荒的思维方式的看法，痛骂殖民主义；也有人不甘心地说西方也有与土地深深绑定的文明，举例让人不知是黑是粉；有原著粉表达了讨厌电影的原因，表白《朝闻道》。
正文翻译
I wanted to talk about this film since I first saw the film in theatres and absolutely loved it. This is one of those film where the more I watch, the more details I notice. And today, I'd like to share some small and big details that might not be able to cross the cultural barrier.
What's your opinion on the film? Let me know in the comments!
自从我第一次在电影院看了《流浪地球》并彻底爱上它开始一直想聊聊这部电影。这一部我每多看一次都会发现新细节的电影。所以今天，我想分享一些无法跨越文化障碍的或大或小的细节。
你们对这部电影是什么观点？请在评论里分享。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 2 )
收藏
As a Chinese immigrant in Canada, it's so refreshing to see the Chinese perspective of life examined. Please do more stuff like this.
作为一个加拿大的中国移民，看到中国式的人生观被剖析，我确实耳目一新。请做更多这样的内容。
me too i used to be embarassed of my heritage but i couldnt be more proud of it now, we re called chinese canadians for a reason. Its nice to see videos like this about china besides the typical political stuff
我也是。我曾经对自己的传统感到尴尬，但现在我为此感到非常自豪，我们被称为华裔加拿大人是有原因的。除了典型的政治内容之外，很高兴看到这样的关于中国的视频。
Yea its nice to see the perspective of other cultures.
是的，很高兴看到其他文化的观点。
And, as a Haitian-American immigrant in Serbia its also refreshing to tune into Accented Cinema's perspective. He is hitting on something very deep and cross-cultural here. Keep it up.
而且，作为一名在塞尔维亚的海地裔美国移民，欣赏异声影院（译注：该视频频道名）的视角也令人耳目一新。他在里面触及了一些非常深刻和跨文化的东西。坚持下去。
In my country, many chinese still spends a lot of resources into retaining the chinese heritage and culture, and thus i feel really blessed.
在我的国家，许多华人依然花费了大量的资源来保留中华的遗产和文化，所以我感到很幸福。
@Kevin Zhu Dude our traditional culture is nothing less than something to be fiercely proud of. Our modern state perhaps has some issues, but Daoism and Confucianism MADE the East.
@Kevin Zhu 伙计，我们的传统文化是值得骄傲的。我们的现代国家也许存在一些问题，但道教和儒家思想造就了东方。
有空回来看看吧。
Excellent video.
I think the fundamental philosophy behind 'mass exodus' in the West - particularly when it comes to space travel - stems more from a romantic notion of the "Age of Exploration" than religion/mythology.
Nowadays, I feel that people are acutely aware that the entire imperial project was at the very least de facto genocidal in nature. That the 'explorers' that we learned about in elementary school were a lot less Dr. Livingstone and a lot more Ghenghis Khan. Once you strip away that American national mythos, the historical reality's a bit too obvious to deny.
And while this would probably be crass to say in many circles, is there any story greater than the European age of "exploration"? Swashbuckling adventurers sail across the edge of the earth! Find fortune and glory! Cities of pyramids with exotic languages built on islands in lakes! Human sacrifice! 300 men take down an empire!
It's almost unbelievable - it wouldn't work in fiction. Arya going "West of Westeros" was cringy because there was only one time that that story could be told.
But again, the reality was genocidal. There was land for Europeans to expand into, to create "a land of opportunity" because the previous inhabitants were dead - whether by smallpox or the sword. So how can we tell that story, again? Without the guilt this time?
... science fiction. Star Trek is a story that's basically the age of exploration - only this time, we don't need to have that nagging feeling that 'wait, we're the baddies'.
China, meanwhile, doesn't have that same exploration mythos. Zheng He went on his voyages, but then China stopped - for much the same reason we stopped going to the moon. There was just no reason to continue.
Do "Let the Bullets Fly" next! Best thing the CFGC's put out this decade, I feel.
优秀的视频。
我认为西方“大移民”蕴藏着的基本哲学更多地源于“探索时代”的浪漫概念，而不是宗教/神话，尤其是这种思想体现在太空旅行题材中的时候。（译注：mass exodus，意为“大范围人口流动”，该词中的“mass”首字母大写时，可指“弥撒”；“exodus”首字母大写时，可指《圣经·旧约》第二章《出埃及记》。）
如今，我感觉人们强烈地意识到整个帝国计划至少在本质上是事实性的种族灭绝。我们在小学学到的“探索者”并不是利文斯顿医生而是成吉思汗。一旦你剥夺了美国民族神话的外衣，历史现实就有点太明显了，无法否认。
尽管在许多圈子里这样说可能是愚蠢的，但还有比欧洲“探索”时代更伟大的故事吗？狂妄自大的冒险家横渡地球边缘！找到财富和荣耀！说着奇异语言的金字塔般的城市建立在湖心岛上！人类的牺牲！300人攻下一个帝国！
这真是难以置信，在小说中都行不通。艾莉亚去“维斯特洛以西”的情节很糟糕因为这个故事只能被讲述一次。
我再重复一次，事实是种族灭绝。欧洲人之所以有一块土地可以扩张，创造一个“有机会的土地”，是因为以前的居民已经死了，无论是通过天花还是通过宝剑。那么我们如何再一次讲述这个故事呢？这次没有内疚吗？
科幻《星际迷航》基本上是一个探索时代的故事——只是这一次，我们不需要有那种“等一下，我们是反派”的说教感。
与此同时，中国就没有同样的探索神话。郑和持续着他的航行，但随后中国停下了——和我们停止去月球的原因一样。没有理由继续进行下去了。
接下来做《让子弹飞》！我觉得这是中影这十年推出的最好的电影。
@Chinese Cooking Demystified Part of me hates to admit it, but I agree - as rooted in GENO.... and cultural hegemony and imperialism as it was, I can't help but love the story of the European Age of Exploration. I grew up loving stories based in that period without questioning the basis behind them. I still get a thrill at the idea of a great sailing ship venturing out into the open sea on a journey to explore the unknown. I wish I could more easily reconcile that with the horrific truth of what really happened.
I wouldn't say it's wrong to say there's still an older, religious basis for the 'mass exodus' concept than the European Age of Exploration, one that informs both modern media and the Age of Exploration itself. Part of it is in the name - 'exodus'. The Bible is full of stories of displacement from an original homeland and a journey to find a new one, and I think that concept has become ingrained in Western culture. But not so in Chinese culture, as you point out.
@Chinese Cooking Demystified 虽然我内心不愿意承认这一点，但我同意——尽管它植根于种族灭绝、文化霸权和帝国主义，但我还是忍不住喜欢欧洲探索时代的故事。我从小就很喜欢基于那个时期的故事，却没有质疑它们背后的基础。一想到一艘伟大的帆船冒险进入公海探索未知，我仍然感到兴奋。我希望我能轻松地调和这一点与真实发生的可怕的真相。
我不会认为，关于“大移民”的概念还有一个比欧洲探索时代更古老的宗教基础的说法是错误的，这个时代影响了现代媒体和探索时代本身。这个名词的其中一部分就是《出埃及记》。《圣经》充满了从原始家园流离失所并寻找新家园的旅程的故事，我认为这个概念在西方文化中已经根深蒂固。但正如你所指出的那样，在中国文化中情况并非如此。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I think it has more to do with the fact Indo-European cultures are descendants of nomadic herders, not too different from the Mongols or Turkic tribes, and for the US it’s even stronger because of recent we’ve had mass migration in to the country and the westward expansion.
我认为这更多的是因为印欧文明是游牧民族的后代，与蒙古或突厥部落没有太大的不同，而对美国来说，这样更强大，因为最近我们有大量移民到这个国家并向西扩张。
I've always thought that the mass exodus is more like only a sext few get the privilege/graced by god/god's chosen/etc... of leaving the old destruction behind. Only the elites get to be saved. To me, that's an important premise for Noah Ark. Only Noah was deemed to be worthy by God... which was the elite standard in that story.
我一直认为，大移民更像是只有少数人获得了特权/被上帝恩赐/上帝的选择/等等……把旧的毁灭抛在身后。只有精英才能得拯救。对我来说，这是诺亚方舟的一个重要前提。只有诺亚被上帝认为是值得的……这是那个故事中的精英标准。
我不認爲一般華裔能夠說清楚《讓子彈飛》的內涵。
I'm late, but it's awesome to see you here!
我来迟了，但在这里见到你真是太棒了！
Western philosophy as it exists today does not value 'steady state', it values "progress". So in Star Trek you see an intense philosophical focus on the idea of human progress, evolution in terms of technology yes, but also evolution in terms of morals and ethics. It's interesting to suggest this is based on nomadic culture, but I don't think so. Some European cultures were very tied to land. The whole Nazi movement, that triggered the Holocaust, evoked "blood and soil", that Germans were tied, rooted, to the land they farmed for millennia, and Jewish diaspora were 'unrooted', and not part of the land. You can see similar themes in the King Arthur legend.
I also take issue with the idea that moving the earth is a uniquely Chinese story. "World Ships" appear in many Western science fiction stories. Moving planets is not rare, and indeed some stories have even moved stars. Also, the self-sacrifice for family is not uniquely Chinese either. Bruce Willis sacrificed himself for his daughter at the end of Armageddon, for example. Parental love for children is the same across cultures.
But there's a nagging undercurrent in the West that to sit still is to die. Elon Musk exemplifies this. Yes, we need to defeat climate change, but also, we need to spread out across the solar system, encompassing the moon, the asteroids, Mars, and elsewhere, as an insurance policy against a disaster. Perhaps this is a reaction to the Dark Ages and The Plague, and once the Enlightenment/Renaissance, rediscovered the huge advances of antiquity, the natural recourse was to see new frontiers.
Then again, the a lot of European exploration was really the search for trade routes, not colonization, in the beginning, and it wasn't really until the discovery of gold and precious furs, that the real imperialism began.
现今存在的西方哲学并不重视“稳态”，而是重视“进步”。所以在《星际迷航》里你能看见一种热切地哲学关注人类进步理念、技术进化，当然，还有道德和伦理的进化。这些都是基于游牧文明的观点很有趣，但是我不赞同。一些欧洲文化与土地紧密相连。引发大屠杀的整个纳粹运动，唤起了“鲜血与祖国”，德国人被绑在他们耕种了数千年的土地上，散居的犹太人“没有根”，不是土地的一部分。你可以在亚瑟王的传说中看到类似的主题。
我也反对《流浪地球》是一个独特的中国故事的观点。“世界之舟”出现在许多西方科幻小说中。移动的行星并不罕见，确实有些故事甚至移动了恒星。此外，对家庭的自我牺牲也不是中国人独有的。例如，布鲁斯·威利斯在《世界末日》结尾为他的女儿牺牲了自己。父母对孩子的爱在不同文化中是相同的。
但在西方有一股难以摆脱的潜规则，静坐不动就是死亡。埃隆·马斯克就是一个例子。是的，我们需要战胜气候变化，但作为防止灾难的保险措施，我们也需要分散到整个太阳系中，包括月球、小行星、火星和其他地方。也许这是对黑暗时代和瘟疫的一种反应，一旦启蒙运动/文艺复兴，重新发现了古代的巨大进步，天然的选择就是开荒拓土。
再重复一遍，一开始，欧洲人的大量探索确实是寻找贸易路线，而不是殖民，直到发现了黄金和珍贵的毛皮，真正的帝国主义才开始了。
Exodus is particularly ingrained in Hollywood because America is filled with families who fled their homeland and are still processing the trauma of that. And so Americans sing songs of Carrickfergus and Anatevka... and Firefly.
“出逃”这一命题在好莱坞尤其根深蒂固，因为美国充满了逃离家园的家庭，他们仍在处理由此带来的创伤。所以美国人唱着《卡里克弗格斯》和安纳堤夫卡的歌……和《萤火虫》。
（译注：《卡里克弗格斯》是爱尔兰民谣；安纳堤夫卡应该指美国百老汇一出相当长寿的音乐剧《屋顶上的提琴手》，剧情是描述沙皇专制时期俄国一群居住在安纳堤夫卡(Anatevka)的犹太家族的故事；《萤火虫》是英国歌曲。）
I agree, but I think Accented Cinema is also correct. In fact, as an employee of GreenPeace, I know he is. Our world is facing a very real devastation in most of our life time. I have seen that Christians have a very deterministic attitude that prevents them from acting. The notion of us people saving the world by applying our knowledge and making sacrifices is unfathomable for them, because in the Bible God degrees when the world will end. Same goes for Judaism and Islam. An Arabic proverb puts to words the attitude in Abrahamic religions: "Before my day has come, no one can harm me; when my day has come, no one can save me." That's an attitude that will hasten our end.
我同意，但我认为异声影院也是正确的。事实上，作为绿色和平组织的一名员工，我知道他是对的。我们的世界在我们一生中的大部分时间都面临着非常真实的灾难。我看到基督徒怀着一种非常决定论的态度，因此他们不会采取行动。人们运用自己的知识并做出牺牲来拯救世界的想法对他们来说是难以理解的，因为在圣经中，上帝决定了世界何时结束。犹太教和伊斯兰教也是如此。一句阿拉伯谚语用语言表达了亚伯拉罕宗教的态度：“在我的日子到来之前，没有人能伤害我；当我的日子来临时，没有人能够拯救我。”这种态度将加速我们的终结。
I think my favourite part of the movie was when everyone in Hangzhou died because they couldn't get the starter core to the city in time, and when granddad dies even after the soldier dude sacrificed himself to save granddad from the lift.
It shows that life is cruel, and sometimes you can't save anyone. If the flim was made by Hollywood, there's no way they would just kill off an entire city and two main (I think?) characters to emphasize the futility of their situation.
我觉得这部电影中我最喜欢的部分是，因为他们无法及时将启动核心带到城市杭州的每个人都死了，和后面外公在一位士兵牺牲自己从电梯里救了他之后还是去世了。
这表明生活是残酷的，有时你救不了任何人。如果这部电影是由好莱坞制作的，他们不可能杀了整个城市和两个主要人物（我想是吧？）强调他们在处境中是徒劳的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@DreamSteam which is inspired by the tale of that old guy who move a mountain
china never change at all
它的灵感来自于那个搬山的老家伙的故事 中国永远不会改变
if you keep doing videos like this you are gonna become one of my favorite youtubers
如果你继续做这样的视频，你就会成为我最喜欢的油管博主之一
Yea this channel is solid
是的，这个频道是可靠的。
Accented Cinema（博主本人）
我爱你们
West: "home is where the family is"
China:
HOME IS HOME
西方：“家就是家人在的地方。”
中国：“家园即为家。”
Homeland is part of the family
家园是这个家庭的一部分。
This might actually be my favorite video yet. When you explained Chinese philosophy of home and family being the same, it really touched me.
这可能是我最喜欢的视频了。当你解释中国的家园和家庭是一样的，我真的很感动。
as a Chinese we know it so well, this made me did not go to see this movie at all as nothing new to me.
作为一个中国人，我们非常了解它，这使我根本没有去看这部电影，因为对我来说这并不是什么新鲜东西。
Liu Cixin (author of this novel) said: If humans leave the earth, then humans can no longer be called humans.
刘慈欣（这部小说的作者）说：如果人类离开了地球，那么人类就不能再被称为人类了。
至上理智
事实上，我更愿意同意这句话，就像在美国的英国殖民主义者一样，前一两代人可能会称自己为英国人，但随着时间的推移，他们会开始称自己为美国人。
@至上理智 furthermore, the comparaison with emigration on Earth has limitations. If we colonize space one day population living on different worlds will surely be drifting from one another from a biological perspective.
此外，根据地球上移民的比较（来预测）也有局限性。如果我们有一天在太空中殖民，从生物学的角度来看，生活在不同星球上的族群肯定会相互偏离。
Even from a simple biological standpoint, if humans left earth and settled somewhere else, then they'll have to re-adapt for the new enviroments, which slowly makes the new humans something else entirely.
即使从一个简单的生物学角度来看，如果人类离开地球，在其他地方定居，那么他们将不得不重新适应新的环境，这慢慢地使新人类成为完全不同的东西。
Should have said earthlings.
应该说地球人。
People in the future born on other planets: Doubt.
未来出生在其他星球上的人：不一定。
nobody said that human couldn't explore the universe without leaving earth
没有人说人类不离开地球就不能探索宇宙。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
hell
going by kurzersagt's stellar engine episode, we know that human might not need to leave the solar system either to explore the universe
该死
根据“简而言之”的那期恒星引擎视频，我们知道人类可能也不需要离开太阳系去探索宇宙。
（译注：Kurzgesagt ，中文意为“简而言之”，是德国慕尼黑的YouTube频道和设计工作室。用他们原创的动画、音乐、幽默等制作一系列关于科学、空间、技术、生物学、历史和哲学等领域的科普视频。）
this channel really helps trying to understand the importance of where i'm from and being able to tell stories through a different perspective. thank you!
异声影院频道真的有助于帮我理解我的来处的重要性，并且能够通过不同的视角来讲故事。谢谢你
I know some fans of Liu Cixin's works dislike this movie a lot. Since I'm kind of one myself, I do understand where they came from, so I will provide a different perspective. It does not conflict with what's said in the video and just depends on what you expect from this movie. The problem here is that the movie does not feel like a Liu Cixin work, and it's not simply because the plot had very little to do with Liu's original novel (except for the basic premise, it's mostly an original story inspired by a very small part of the novel), but that some of the movie's philosophy goes completely against Liu's works.
Liu's works have always been a celebration of rationalism over emotion. Characters in his novels would do things that seem cruel, but are in fact the best things to do for the greater good or the pursuit of knowledge. Logic and science over emotion and personal feelings is a very obvious theme of Liu's novels. It gives his work a grander feeling that transcends individual human, because the universe does not have emotions. A character in Liu's novel would never do something like in the movie, where one of the main characters sacrificed the backup plan for the preservation of humanity and its knowledge (the space station with 300,000 human embryos) to gamble for the small chance that he can save the earth and the people on it. What's worse is that his heroic action actually succeeded, despite all scientists predicted his plan having less than 0.1% chance of success. If it was Liu's work, he would have failed. Or it would have been because he came up with a concrete theory that could make it work, not because "even the slightest chance of saving actual people is better than embryos". Compared to Liu's works like "朝闻道" (the title is the first half of the famous ancient quote "朝闻道，夕死可矣” which translates to "(if one can) learn the way in the morning, it would be fine to die in the same evening"), where characters would sacrifice their own lives and the lives of their loved ones for the pursuit of knowledge, some plots in this movie feels like a slap in the face to the values and philosophies celebrated in Liu's works. For some fans this is the biggest problem of the movie.
我知道一些刘慈欣作品的粉丝很不喜欢这部电影。因为我自己就是，我确实理解这种情绪源于什么，所以我会提供一个不同的视角。这与视频中所说的并不冲突，只是取决于你对这部电影的期望。问题是，这部电影不像刘慈欣作品，并不仅仅因为情节与他的原创小说几乎毫无相干（除了基本前提，电影主要是一个原创故事，灵感来自原著小说很小的一部分），而且这部电影的一些哲学和刘慈欣作品里的完全相反。
刘慈欣的作品一直是对理性主义而非情感的颂扬。他小说中的人物会做一些看似残酷的事情，但实际上这是为了更大的利益或对知识的追求而做的最好的选择。处于情感和个人感受之上的逻辑和科学是刘慈欣小说的一个非常明显的主题。这给他的作品带来了一种超越个人的宏大感觉，因为宇宙没有情感。一个刘慈欣的小说中的角色永远不会像电影中那样做，电影里一个主要角色以牺牲保护人类及其知识的后备计划（拥有30万个人类胚胎的空间站）为赌注，只为了拯救地球和地球上的人的微小可能性。更糟糕的是，尽管所有科学家都预测他的计划成功的几率不到0.1%，但他的英雄行为还是成功了。或许，（成功的原因）可以改为他提出了一个具体的理论并且实践了它，而不是“即使是最微小的拯救人类的机会也比胚胎好”。与刘慈欣作品《朝闻道》相比（标题是著名古代名言的前半部分：“朝闻道，夕死可矣。” 意思是“如果你能在早上得知真理，那么当晚死去也未尝不可”），为了追求知识，角色们会牺牲自己和亲人的生命，而电影中的一些情节感觉就像是对刘慈欣作品中所歌颂的价值观和哲学的一记耳光。对一些粉丝来说，这是这部电影最大的问题。
You need to rewatch the movie. Yes, the original plan to ignite the hydrogen had 0% chance of success (because the flame won't reach Jupiter's atmosphere). But blowing up the space station is pretty much a safe bet. (It's still a gamble that guaranteed the destruction of the contigency plan, but the odd is far better than 0%)
I haven't read the book, but I don't really see the ending as the triumph of idealism over materialism, but rather a synthesis of both. The main driving conflict of the movie is between the father's pragmatic materialism (thesis) and his son's sentimental idealism (anti-thesis). This contradiction permeates the movie (the conflict about the mother's euthanization, the conflict about prioritizing lives before securing the Core, the underlying conflict between the lucky few and the sacrificed many represented in the sister, etc.) The movie never outright told the audience which side is the right one (the fact that the movie is told from various perspectives also helped). That is until the ending, which is where the conflict of both ideas is resolved. The pragmatic materialist realized that he couldn't go ahead with the most logical plan of action, because he didn't really care about the fate of humanity as much as the survival of his son. And the idealist finally has to concede that some trade in lives are worth it and necessary for the good of the many.
你需要再看一遍这部电影。对，最初点燃氢气的计划只有0%的几率成功（因为火焰不会到达木星的大气层）。但炸毁空间站是一个非常安全的选择。（保证这个偶然性计划的破坏力度仍然是一场赌博，但概率比0%要好得多。）
我没有读过这本书，但我并不认为它的结局是理想主义战胜实利主义，而是两者的综合。电影的主要驱动冲突是父亲务实的实利主义（论点）和儿子感性的理想主义（反论点）。这一矛盾渗透在电影中（关于母亲安乐死的冲突，关于优先考虑生命而不是保护火石的冲突，以及妹妹所代表的幸运少数人和牺牲的多数人之间的潜在冲突等）。电影从未直接告诉观众哪一方是正确的（电影从不同角度讲述的事实也有帮助）。直到结束，这两种观点的冲突才得以解决。这位务实的实利主义者意识到，他无法实施最合乎逻辑的行动计划，因为他并不真正关心人类的命运，而是关心儿子的生存。而理想主义者最终不得不承认，为了大多数人的利益，一些生命交易是值得的，也是必要的。
That is absolutely fair, which is the reason why I'm still not very optimistic about the adaptation of "The Three Body Problem". Part of the reason I liked this film was I went in with zero expectation. And even then, I still think I have my filled and will not want a Wandering Earth 2.
Still, as a film writer, I understand why they have to make those changes. Liu's work has very little emphasis on human characters. It's usually about greater forces at work, and humanity doing the inevitable. It's strong social commentary, but usually doesn't make for very engaging films.
这是绝对公平的，这也是我对《三体》的改编仍然不太乐观的原因。我喜欢这部电影的部分原因是我没有任何期望。即使如此，我仍然认为我已经心满意足了，不会想看《流浪地球2》。
不过，作为一名电影编剧，我也理解为什么他们必须做出这些改变。刘慈欣的作品很少强调人类角色刻画。通常是关于更宏观的力量在推动故事，而人类在做不可避免的事情。这是一种强烈的社会评论，但通常并不能造就一部非常吸引人的电影。
Although I had admittedly only read Liu's Three-body trilogy, I've always thought that it was a celebration of humanity, which not only include rationality but also "emotions": empathy and the connection between human beings
我虽然只读过刘慈欣的《三体》三部曲，但一直认为它是对人性的庆祝，不仅包括理性，还包括“情感”：人与人之间的同理心联系
@Patchy True that "Liu's works have always been a celebration of rationalism over emotion." But you forget Liu's best short story 帶上她的眼睛.
“刘慈欣的作品一直是对理性主义而不是情感的庆祝。”这句话是对的，但你忘了刘慈欣最好的短篇小说《帶上她的眼睛》。
@Patchy Thanks for this comment 谢谢你 ���
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
谢谢你的评论，xie xie ni
现在，我明白了为什么很多人说刘慈欣的小说比电影好得多。我认为你已经很好地描述了（电影和）那些读过小说的人之间的潜在脱节，这导致了他们强烈的蔑视。
A good book shows rationality, a good movie raises emotions.
一本好书能体现理性，一部好电影能激发感性。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Wenxu Yao True to an extent, but imo it doesn't have to be that way. That's just tradition, not something inherent to either medium.
在某种程度上是正确的，但在我看来，它不必是这样的。这只是传统，不是这两种媒介的固有东西。
@Accented Cinema Three Body Problem is all about human characters. The sequels, especially the last one, maybe not so much, or the characters are a bit more archetypal, but the first one... the characters were what made the book! There are greater forces at work, sure, and they shape the characters' lives and outlook, but you can't say Ye Wenjie, Wang Miao, or the legendary Da Shi were shallow characters. Even that PLA general was a nuanced character. Three Body Problem gives Netflix a lot to work with. There is no excuse not to make a great film, especially with the amount of show time afforded by an online serial format. I'm not optimistic, but I won't be forgiving either if/when they screw it up. It's one of my favourite novels of all time! :p
《三体》第一部都是关于人物的。续集，尤其是最后一部，也许没有那么好，或者说角色更刻板，但第一部……人物成就了这本书！当然，有一些更宏大的力量在起作用，它们塑造了人物的生活和前景，但你不能说叶文洁、汪淼或传奇的大史都是肤浅的人物。即使连PLA将军也是一个细节丰富的人物。《三体》第一部给了奈飞公司很多操作空间。没有理由不拍一部伟大的电影，尤其是有了流媒体平台所提供的放映时间。我并不乐观，但如果他们搞砸了，我也不会原谅他们。这是我一直以来最喜欢的小说之一！呵呵
@Miki Cerise Actually, no. The Three Body Problem, although a very engaging sci-fi story, has almost all its characters being flat personas instead of complex persons. It gives the story a strong sense of detachment from possible emotional appeals and is thus not likely to have a successful adaptation.
其实没有。《三体》第一部虽然是一个非常引人入胜的科幻故事，但几乎所有的人物都是扁平人物，而不是立体人物。这赋予故事一种强烈的超然感，脱离了可能的情感诉求，不太可能有一个成功的改编。
Honestly, I hated this movie with a passion coming from a person who was actually excited to see the movie at first. But after watching your video it kinda taught me to like this movie a little more. Keep up the good work!!
老实说，最初因为一个看到这部电影非常激动的人，我非常讨厌这部电影。但看了你的视频后，这让我有一点喜欢这部电影了。继续好好努力吧！!
I have the absolute opposite experience. I absolutely have no hope for this movie being good, and was pleasantly surprised.
That's the problem with being a mediocre adaptation to a classic book, I guess.
我有一个完全相反的经历。我对这部电影的质量完全不抱任何期待，所以我感到很惊喜。
我想，这就是造成一本经典书的平庸改编作品的原因。
I read one of the "Sequel" Light Novel of this where one char manage to travel back in time to change all this. In that Light Novel, the main char died during the journey there and after he got back, he get stronger, used the knowledge of the future to actually lure all the powerful rich corporations and leaders countries during the supposed confrontation with aliens and basically destroyed them.
Then establish his rules on Earth with China's culture as the main.
Needless to say, it become just too much Nationalist aspect that I just couldn't even stomach to read further.
我读了一本“续集”轻小说，一个角色设法回到过去，改变了这一切。在那部轻小说中，主人物在旅程中死去，然后他回到过去，变得更加强大，利用对未来的知识，在所谓的与外星人的对抗中，引起所有强大的富裕企业和国家领导的注意，并基本上摧毁了他们。
然后以中国文化为主要文化，建立他在地球上的规则。
@Cuong Nguyen could it be that we're just too deeply engrained into the western form of nationalistic that we just brush a story aside because it challenges our own view points?
是不是因为我们太过深陷西方的民族主义形式，以至于因为一个故事挑战了我们自己的观点而把把它放在一边？