the Martian

Chris Johnston

Chris Johnston

Veteran
I find myself really looking forward to this flick mainly because I'm Sooo tired of super hero, comic book, trilogy this or that, type stuff that's so prevalent in theaters nowadays.

This seems to be a hard science film and his success or failure in staying alive depends his ability to use his knowledge of science to survive.

Trailers look awesome and I usually like anything R Scott tends to put out but....

I find the entire premise of him being left on Mars (giant hurricane/windstorm) is so ridiculous that it's got me wondering how much of the other "science" in this flick is anywhere near real. (and it's kinda ruining it for me)
Not only the hurricane on Mars, but we also get to watch them take off in a spaceship in the middle of this killer hurricane???

Does this bug anyone else as much as it does me, or am I just being a wuss?
 
Science be damned if it gets in the way of a good story (j/k). I'm on the fence about this one. I"m not a fan of Castaway with Tom Hanks. A lot of people loved it, but I don't want to watch a lot of Matt Damon alone on Mars. But, if it's more of an action film like the trailer suggests, might be entertaining.
 
The writer himself acknowledged that the sand storm in the opening was totally inaccurate but left it anyway as he needed a way to get the story going with the one astronaut left behind. Throughout the rest of the story he went to huge effort to be as technically accurate and feasible as possible. This was for the novel and I don't know the degree to which this is replicated in the movie, but the writer said that he was very pleased with the screenplay (adapted by another writer).

I adored the book and am eagerly awaiting the movie. The novel was a "hard science" fiction book, with (almost) everything written in a plausible, scientifically correct manner. There is much written about this both by the author and others. The book was famously written in installments on his personal website and then later released for Kindle readers because readers requested it of him for convenience. He only charged $.99 because he'd already been giving it away on his website, and then the thing took off. It is an utterly engrossing read and from early reports the movie is just as captivating. Looking forward to it.
 
Hopefully Astronaut Matt Damon is more likable the 2nd time he is stranded on a planet awaiting rescue in as many years. Been hearing good things about it though so I plan on catching it in the theater.
 
Good to see a show where Sean Bean doesn't die.

Also Jessica Chastain would make a friggin' awesome Sarah Connor under James Cameron (though I didn't entirely like her at the very beginning of this).

The landscape shot of Mars with the starry sky was really striking, don't think I've seen that before which is weird.

I'm giving it somewhere between 3.5 and 3.75 out of 4.
 
I thought they did an admirable job capturing the spirit of the book and they certainly retained all of the most cinematic elements. It's unfortunate that they had to trim back on much of the hard science math elements that made the book such a nerdy delight, but the film clocks in over two hours so something had to go. I know they actually filmed a great deal of this material but likely had to cut much of it for pacing. Enough remains to give the right feel.

My two favorite moments from the book were actually cut from the film (minor spoiler alert but I'll keep it vague). I rather enjoyed Watney's response when told to keep it clean as all of Earth could read his messages. And I bet they filmed the scene with Johanssen communicating with her dad and then cut it. I can picture Kate Mara playing that out in my mind.

Like most of Ridley Scott's films, I'm looking forward to the voluminous DVD extras, including the cut scenes.

BTW, nice use of GoPros. Almost 30 of them.
 
Watched last night. Entertaining evening away from work, sometimes a little too hollywood, got bored of the same shot of the techs cheering at nasa base for successful launch/landing/hookup etc.

Mitch..

Go Pros?

Seemed like product placement.. but also sony action cams on the helmets?

How much footage did they actually create - how much were they props?

I would have assumed that other 'professional' minicams into an Oddesey (for example?!) would be a much better solution for aquiring POV footage suitable for the big screen and the rigours of post?

While I might have used them for helmet cam I certainly would have chosen something else for example where MD does his PTC in the station.

At minimum if I were working at that level with gopro Id demand software that allowed control of shutter!

S
 
Incidentally - Im assuming this is set in the future.. the press conference way too many 70-200 2.8s - surely by then we will have moved on?
 
I found this to be a very well executed film. Very entertaining.

My supervisor at work wrote the following:

I can’t help but mention that the excellence of The Martian filled me with pangs of melancholy. Here is a straightforward, big-boy-pants film. There are no superpowers, and there is just one, highly sardonic mention of Iron Man. Even in outer space, we can’t fully escape Tony Stark, it seems. It should be like this more often. That it is not has nothing to do with The Martian and everything to do with an industry that is deathly afraid of the financial consequences of the energy and investment involved in trying to introduce new characters to the world. Scott and the wry, assured Damon prove that it is possible — easy even. For once, I’m hoping there are a few imitators finding inspiration in this film
Click to expand...
 
Finally saw it. Disappointed. Wasn't horrible, but I barely thought it was worth the time watching it. Childish and super predictable - I watched it with my wife, and called it down to the seconds on story beats ("now they need a major complication, I bet the potato farm explodes" etc.). Kinda schlocky methods - like when they showed his starved (thin) body, they were careful not to show Damon's face, and showed the face, when the body was covered, and it was all super obvious. Cheering NASA center, the world capitals cheering - bleh, not different from any blockbuster BS Michael Bay might have made. Characters popping in with super thin development, and then utterly cliched signifiers - 'he's shocked, spits coffee" "falls over, slips from excitement". Everything by the numbers, not a scintilla of anything surprising anywhere. Matt Damon is Matt Damon here, competent, nothing special... the whole scientist thing had a feeling of a McGyver - Inspector Gadget - Mr. Magoo combo. It's like it was made for children, or audiences from back in the day. I'm surprised it was as successful as it was - I guess middle-of-the-road, super safe, feel-good product makes bank.
 
Saw it at the regency plaza 6 in NoRth Hollywood. Was glaf i didn't have any expectations going in. Was fun and light hearted.

i marvel at how much money we have spent saving matt damon over the years.
 
Yeah, I enjoyed this movie but it was definitely a safe, right down the middle formulaic crowd pleaser with zero surprises. It evaporated from my brain seconds after seeing it.
 
I didn't like this movie so much.
It almost felt like a parody at some point...
The character was too one-dimensional, in my opinion.
 
I thought it was decent. Splurged and saw it in 3d... Several of the 3d parts were way over done and looked phony. There is no reason to make objects appear inches in front of the viewer where the objects start to break down. Several feet in front would have given a good effect and looked better. Otherwise a decent movie with Ok and somewhat predictable story. Worth a rental, but not really worth the price of a 3d theater ticket.

The theater was empty too, had center seating in almost center of the screen height, just about optimal for the 3d.
 
David Jimerson said:
I enjoyed it. Nice to see a realistic NASA-type mission not spoiled by silly and insipid horror elements.
Click to expand...

The problem I had with the film was explaining to the Wife some of the 'astrophysics'... such as why the 'sling shot' effect works... but then I liked "Gravity"(2013) and "Interstellar"(2014).

It is odd that she will 'accept' such things as 'jump to hyper space' or similar in "Star Wars" or "Star Trek"... but something that is actually used... big road block... I had to reduce to 'when a spinning skater brings her arms in and she spins faster, that's an example of conservation of angular momentum'...

It sort of make for a 'lost moment' in watching a film...
 
My wife's usually happier when I don't stop the movie to explain something. :) The only thing I said during the movie was "no, it's not" when they put up the subtitle which said "Johnson Space Center."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top