The Martian

[Brian 1]

I'm interested in the subject matter,but Matt Damon is a terrible actor at best. WhenI saw Interstellar I had no idea he was in it and true to form he ruined that for me! As a side note the martian helmet does look extremely similar to the suits used in Prometheus.

[G_Marcat_Italy]

The Martian???

There is in this movie a scene that is the key of all the movie:

when in full 2015 I see a movie where an astronaut go out in space and from there guide the incoming space module with hand gestures I think they consider all stupids

In this scene is lost the part where the astronaut sign the UPS receipt for the delivery

[Jennings]

when in full 2015 I see a movie where an astronaut go out in space and from there guide the incoming space module with hand gestures I think they consider all stupids

I think you missed the whole point... The hand gestures were meant as a joke.

[Steve N]

Saw it yesterday, and loved it. Best "hard" sci fi flick I've seen in years. Completely eclipses the various Mars mission movies of recent years. Think "Apollo 13" on steroids. No silly alien interventions or fantastic fabrications. The tech is a bit beyond or current capablities (not to mention unaffordable) but everything is based on sound science and engineering. Neil DeGrasse-Tyson gave it his stamp of approval..the only major scientific inaccuracy he pointed out was the dust storm in the opening scene that forces the expedition to leave (and clobbers Damon with flying debris leading the team to think he's dead.) Mars' atmosphere is actually so thin that a human could easily walk in hurricane force winds, and those winds can't pick up much more than dust.

The plot was a nice, fast paced thrill ride. I found myself really getting invested in the characters, even if they were a bit two-dimensional. It might have been nice to see a bit more of how Watney is psychologically affected by his solitude, but this isn't really that kind of movie (Tom Hanks already covered that ground in "Castaway" anyway.) No preaching or "massaging." Jeff Daniels plays the head of NASA, a bureaucrat more focused on the agancy's reputation and future funding than rescuing one stranded guy (which I suppose is probably how the guy at the top is supposed to think.) Anyway, q great flick all around..and as a child of the late 70s I loved the music (particularly as the end credits roll.) I will definitely be picking this one up on Blu-Ray.

SN

[rob.w]

Read the book earlier this summer and enjoyed it but must admit the author's long techical explanations dragged at times but then that's where the author came from. Liked the book enough to go to the mocie last week and was very pleased how closely they stayed to the story in the book and that is so rare. They left out his efforts to get around the storm on his long trip but replaced this with some breathtaking scenes of the vastness of the Martian landscape. The ship designer was certainly a fan of 2001 since both these ships looked a lot alike but that's no criticism since the greatest of all sci-fi movies (my opinion) certainly set a new stardard for how movie space craft should look like. As a modeller I'd be excited to build both the space craft and the Mars Rover from the film.

And yes I'll be adding the Blu Ray to my collection. (Yes I'm an old geezer and the idea of owning a physical copy of something is hard to put aside). Good story and very good transition to the screen, Make sure you go see it.

rw

[Linden Hill]

Two thumbs up from me, apart from the 15 minutes they spent shoehorning in the ridiculously obsequious subplot about highly uncharacteristic PRC altruism. Is this what you have to do these days to insure that a movie gets released in China?

Edited October 15, 2015 by Linden Hill

[majortomski]

To those who have seen it in theaters: is it worth seeing in 3D?

I can't see how 3D would add much to this story but I could be wrong...

Yes, I actually got dizzy for one one of the shots.

I think the connection with the PRC was poorly done in the movie, they left out all the politics. You do see the Chinese astronaut on the next flight though.

[RiderFan]

An interesting assessment of the movie written by Dr. Robert Zubrin, someone that has actually designed and planned Mars missions for a living.

http://www.marssociety.org/home/news/?post=how-scientifically-accurate-is-the-martian

[dnl42]

From the above link:

If Barack Obama’s successor were to commit the nation, in the spring of 2017, with the same kind of courage and determination that JFK did in 1961, we could be on Mars before the end of his or her second term. It’s a question of political will to me. That’s the real positive message of The Martian. It’s saying, “we can do it. If we use our minds, we can take on all these challenges”.

The unknown/forgotten ploy Kennedy used was to claim going to the moon was a matter of national defense. He was well aware that no other approach would work. Not political will. Not exploration. Protection of the nation.

Edited October 16, 2015 by dnl42

[Cool Hand]

Two thumbs up from me, apart from the 15 minutes they spent shoehorning in the ridiculously obsequious subplot about highly uncharacteristic PRC altruism. Is this what you have to do these days to insure that a movie gets released in China?

Except this "subplot" is taken almost verbatim from the novel. This was not a ploy to make it (either the film or the novel) more marketable in China. This major plot point was a commentary on the ideal of non-nationalistic attitudes held by scientists worldwide. This plot point illustrates the central theme of the story - the world coming together in cooperation, united by science and bonded in humanity.

[Linden Hill]

I have not read the book, so point taken.

However, how would that explain the total contextual absence of any Russian cosmonautical participation in the 'world coming together in cooperation, united by science and bonded by humanity'? They've got the rockets. Nevertheless, I understand we're talking about a piece of fiction; there's no need for practical justification.

According to Bloomberg, China has 5,660 cinemas with 28,000 screens serving 1.3 billion people. The U.S. has about 40,000 screens for a population one-fourth the size. Russia has only 1,128 cinemas serving less than 60% of the population (Hollywood Reporter); that's max 85 million people. The figures speak for themselves.

The 'subplot' (in deference I'll use your quotation marks, but if it's not a subplot, what is it?) seems to be quite handy in the context of the PRC establishing a quota of only 34 foreign films showing on Chinese screens per annum in 2016.

Finally, as a humble ticket-buying moviegoer the PRC plot line struck me as being totally incongruous apropos the rest of the movie, so my critique should be taken as an personal one, to which I trust I am entitled!

[habu2]

Best "hard" sci fi flick I've seen in years. Completely eclipses the various Mars mission movies of recent years. Think "Apollo 13" on steroids.

I liked "Apollo13" but, like "Titanic", you knew how it was going to end. Unless you read the "Martian" book (like I did) you don't necessarily know the outcome of the movie.

[niart17]

You knew how Apollo 13 was going to end because you are either old enough to remember hearing about it (like me) or are a space enthusiast (like we both are) Many people didn't know the story of Apollo 13 so to them it had that sense of thrill.

And BTW, please tell me you didn't compare Apollo 13 to Titanic...One was a historical drama and the other was well...a love story with a boat sinking added for effect. Just kidding of course, but they are on 2 different levels in my opinion.

Bill

[CorsairMan]

I liked "Apollo13" but, like "Titanic", you knew how it was going to end. Unless you read the "Martian" book (like I did) you don't necessarily know the outcome of the movie.

Hollywood big budget movie?? And you didn't know how it was going to end??

[streetstream]

To those who have seen it in theaters: is it worth seeing in 3D?

I can't see how 3D would add much to this story but I could be wrong...

I saw it in 3D yesterday (picked 3D because the schedule allowed my fiancée and i to grab something to eat) and i must say, 3D doesn't ad much to the movie. There are very little scenes that seem to have been made to fully benefit 3D.

Anyway, here's my opinion on the movie:

First of, great movie. Nice pace, good acting, and not the usual, we got to safe him without any outside help hollywood crap.

Would have love to see the Russians help, but if it isn't in the book, i can see how they didn't write it in the script. I just hope in real live the good relationship in spacetravel between the US, EU and Russia (see ISS) would see any nation to ask a partner for help.

The only thing that is a bit annoying with these types of movies is that you can see the ending coming from a mile away.

But, to be honost, you know that going in.

Conclusion: If you want to see a (very) good movie that isn't an over the top disastermovie, go see this one. I would definitely recommend it.

[Don]

...Would have love to see the Russians help...I just hope in real live the good relationship in spacetravel between the US, EU and Russia (see ISS) would see any nation to ask a partner for help...

But that's what the movie Armageddon was for... ...

:D

[Cool Hand]

I have not read the book, so point taken.

This is where you should have stopped. Like I stated before, what you saw in the film was taken directly from the text, which was written with no considerations for sales in China.

However, how would that explain the total contextual absence of any Russian cosmonautical participation in the 'world coming together in cooperation, united by science and bonded by humanity'? They've got the rockets. Nevertheless, I understand we're talking about a piece of fiction; there's no need for practical justification.

Except there is a need for practical justification. The entire premise of the novel was the idea that the mission was undertaken with technology currently developed, just more refined. Everything was written as if it is based on today's reality. The author's choice to focus on China's space program as a means for providing a replacement booster was likely based on the fact that China's ambition in space exploration eclipses that of the current Russian space program. China is currently developing rockets that have the capability of delivering a large payload to Mars - Russia is not. In short, China is the future powerhouse of space exploration in the East. In the years to come, China's space program will be the only true rival to NASA. The rivalry which already exists between the two, is likely reflective of the rivalry of the two nations each represents. In my opinion, the author's choice is reflective of the Apollo/Soyuz mission, where the desire for scientific cooperation and international goodwill overcame the political tension of the Cold War. The US and China now share those tensions, with current NASA policy barring any Chinese citizen from entering a NASA facility - for fear of spying. This is a manifestation of a general spirit of competition and paranoia between the two agencies. The author presents a very real reason for these two rivals to cooperate, even explaining the "sales pitch" for allowing the governments to allow their space agencies to work together - a Chinese astronaut is given a position on the Ares 5 crew in exchange for the booster.

According to Bloomberg, China has 5,660 cinemas with 28,000 screens serving 1.3 billion people. The U.S. has about 40,000 screens for a population one-fourth the size. Russia has only 1,128 cinemas serving less than 60% of the population (Hollywood Reporter); that's max 85 million people. The figures speak for themselves.The 'subplot' (in deference I'll use your quotation marks, but if it's not a subplot, what is it?) seems to be quite handy in the context of the PRC establishing a quota of only 34 foreign films showing on Chinese screens per annum in 2016.

This is irrelevant as to why the events in the novel were written as they were. I will give you credence as far as the movie studio believing that the film would sell well in China because of the events inherent to the story, and why the Chinese government would want a film that portrays China positively widely distributed there. But your assumption of a correlation between story choice and future Chinese sales is outright incorrect.

Finally, as a humble ticket-buying moviegoer the PRC plot line struck me as being totally incongruous apropos the rest of the movie, so my critique should be taken as an personal one, to which I trust I am entitled!

Again, you're free to believe what you want, but that won't stop me from calling you out for using fuzzy logic.

[Jennings]

It's a movie. It's fiction. People have opinions about them. Opinions are, by definition, not right or wrong. That's why they're called "opinions".

[DutyCat]

Read the book over the summer in hardback ('cause that's how I roll). I thought the book was okay. I did not think it was a riveting page turner. It was more like, "This happened, so I did this to fix it." Some of the "fixes" seemed improbable.

I thought the movie was better than the book. There is more humor, for one thing (admittedly MUCH easier to convey in a movie than a book, where it is almost impossible). One of the things I specifically looked for was authenticity in the Martian landscape. If they had filmed it in Arizona somewhere with a red filter, then combined it with some CG space shots, it would have been a letdown. But, they didn't. Most of the background around Matt Damon appeared authentic.

Nit picks:

• The strength of the windstorm was already mentioned. I think I read somewhere were 100mph winds on Mars (which do occur), would have the strength of a 11mph wind on Earth. However, it is a forgivable plot device.
• It is obviously not Martian gravity, which is less than half of Earth's.
• .Acoustics were based upon Earth air. Sound travels more slowly, has a lower pitch, and dissipates much more rapidly on Mars.

When you are watching the film, the wide angle shots make it seem like you are on Mars. But the closer shots of Whatney working look and sound as though they were shot here on Earth, with the exception of the background visuals. So I think they missed the chance to make it feel like a really alien environment. Maybe that was deliberate. I think that part of the purpose of this movie, aside from making money, is to show people that a viable mission to Mars is within our reach using near future technology. If they made it feel TOO alien, I think folks would be frightened and put off.

I do not know if the fact that the Russians were not being featured vs the Chinese as an intentionally political decision by Andy Weir. I think they did a good job making a statement against the usual politics by having one of the Chinese scientists say "let's keep it among scientists." There were also some supporting scenes of the Chinese people cheering on the rescue mission. So clearly, there was a sub-message of international cooperation. But it is true that the Russians weren't mentioned at all.

As far as money goes. Everything you see on screen is doable if we can somehow get hacks out of government who do not know how to handle money. We spend $300-400 billion every year just on debt service. The TARP bail out a few years ago ended up being about $450 billion. NASA's budget is 18 billion or so annually. What is missing is political will of the American people and government. When Newt Gingrich was running for president in 2012, he did a rally here in Florida and talked about going back to the moon, establishing a base to test out interplanetary technology, and then going on to Mars. His was ridiculed and his poll numbers went through the basement the next day. I think people would support space exploration if our budget process were more disciplined. However, they are not going to support it if we are $20 trillion in debt. That debt is a huge albatross around our neck.