- 20,002
- 11,120
Who is excited for this film? I love survival films and his one is hot on my radar!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3659388/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3659388/
Last edited:
The Martian Movie - Survival Thriller
- Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Film
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
113 replies · 15K views
Discussion
jerromyjon
- 1,244
- 189
Wow it looks amazing! Now I'm excited too!
OmCheeto
Gold Member
- 2,536
- 3,663
Greg Bernhardt said:
YES!
The problem is, should I read the book first?
My friend gave me her copy of the book this last Monday.
- 20,002
- 11,120
My dilemma as well. We only have a week until the movie is out.OmCheeto said:
cpscdave
- 402
- 120
Haha I was really excited to see it this past weekend... Only to find out that it is released next weekend!
Thats what I get for assuming that all this hype on social media implied that it was released.
I debated reading the book after I saw the first trailer, but I fell back on past experience. Movies can be good. But the book is almost always better. So if you see the movie then read the book you get double enjoyment. If you read the book and then see the movie you're disappointed in how much better the movie should have been :)
Thats what I get for assuming that all this hype on social media implied that it was released.
I debated reading the book after I saw the first trailer, but I fell back on past experience. Movies can be good. But the book is almost always better. So if you see the movie then read the book you get double enjoyment. If you read the book and then see the movie you're disappointed in how much better the movie should have been :)
- 20,002
- 11,120
93% on RT! I can't wait to see it next week!
- 19,385
- 15,622
Yeah, this does look like a good one, and Matt Damon is usually good. It has gotten unusually high ratings for this type of movie.
OmCheeto
Gold Member
- 2,536
- 3,663
4 hours until showtime for me.Greg Bernhardt said:
Ugh! It's in 3D. I hope that technology has improved a bit.
ps. In case anyone was wondering why I posted an image of the book, it's because my friends' houseboat burned down the day before one of them gave me their copy, and the book is one of only a few items that survived. I never got past the first sentence of the novel, as it seemed oddly appropriate, for both the situations, and I couldn't stop laughing.
"...laughing and crying. You know, it's the same release..."
OmCheeto
Gold Member
- 2,536
- 3,663
I liked it.
cpscdave
- 402
- 120
Saw it yesterday! really great film! Thoroughly enjoyed it.
However 1 small issue.
Matt Damon's character should've been named Marvin!
However 1 small issue.
Matt Damon's character should've been named Marvin!
Science Advisor
- 1,150
- 370
Overall I quite liked it. I think the *small* changes they made to the book cheapened the story, but that's Hollywood for you.
Overall probably my favorite outer space movie yet!
Overall probably my favorite outer space movie yet!
DiracPool
- 1,254
- 514
OmCheeto said:
You didn't show up to the theater with your old "Jaws 3-D" anaglyph glasses from 1979 you've been holding onto for such an occasion, did you?
I saw it yesterday. Loved it. Would recommend seeing it in 3D with the rest of the Roy Orbison clones. The panning landscape shots of the Mars terrain in 3D looks real neato!
CrazyNinja
- 171
- 60
Here comes the big question though: is it actually possible?
These people made Gravity look like child's play. Walk upto NASA in this movie and say "we have a astronaut stuck in orbit " and they will bring her back before you have the complimentary muffin. :P
These people made Gravity look like child's play. Walk upto NASA in this movie and say "we have a astronaut stuck in orbit " and they will bring her back before you have the complimentary muffin. :P
- 20,002
- 11,120
Going to see it tonight!
- 19,385
- 15,622
Bring back some popcorn to share !Greg Bernhardt said:
meBigGuy
Gold Member
- 2,325
- 406
Greg Bernhardt said:
No followup? Were you that disappointed?
OmCheeto
Gold Member
- 2,536
- 3,663
I heard on the radio yesterday morning that a lot of new movies coming out are not doing too well.
After being out for 5 weeks, "The Martian" is still #1. [ref]
Yay!
After being out for 5 weeks, "The Martian" is still #1. [ref]
Yay!
Borg said:
Given it's still current popularity, and the fact that I still haven't read the book, I'll not weigh in with my theory on "the holes". 
Science Advisor
- 3,635
- 3,328
I finally saw it. It was everything I was hoping it wouldn't be.
- 19,385
- 15,622
Expand, please (preferably w/o spoilers)Bandersnatch said:
Science Advisor
- 3,635
- 3,328
The film is superficial and badly dumbed down. This is especially jarring when you consider what made the book it's based on so much fun.
Like most science fiction, the book has a simple story arc and shallow, two-dimensional characters, in service of presenting an idea - that of using one's brains to get out of sticky situations. It is all about letting your inner engineer out, about problem solving using relatively basic knowledge and back-of-an-envelope calculations.
In the film, nearly all of that is gutted. Rather than a story about human resourcefulness, it is a story about the magical science people and their incomprehensible ways. Most of the reasoning goes off-stage, and we're only presented with conclusions. Furthermore, these conclusions tend to be presented in the worst possible way - you've got characters explaining them to other, highly qualified and educated characters using ham-fisted analogies.
Everything is telegraphed to the audience in the simplest possible ways. You don't get people talking like they are among their coworkers, but like they explaining their job to little children.
There's one scene in particular that had me roll my eyes - an astrodynamicist sits with his laptop hooked up directly to the mainframe of a supercomputer, and the laptop displays a huge message 'calculations correct'. Oh, really? That's what the supercomputer actually told you? And you couldn't check it from your office?
This ties well to the discussion in the recent insight posted by mfb - rather than show how the science and engineering 'actually' works, trusting the audience's intelligence to follow and enjoy the ride (like the book did), the film obscures the whole process, basically calls the viewers too dumb to follow, and cementing the divide.Then you've got all the characters from the book show up in the film - but due to time and form constraints, their already shallow personae are even more simplified, to the point where you're just witnessing a string of cameos with little to say, or reason to be there.
So you end up with a film that doesn't have the book's gimmick, character drama, or proper story, and consists of MacGuyver making bombs out of shoelaces, scientists waving their magic computers and spelling the obvious to each other, and pretty visuals peppered with cheap American-centric pathos.
Like most science fiction, the book has a simple story arc and shallow, two-dimensional characters, in service of presenting an idea - that of using one's brains to get out of sticky situations. It is all about letting your inner engineer out, about problem solving using relatively basic knowledge and back-of-an-envelope calculations.
In the film, nearly all of that is gutted. Rather than a story about human resourcefulness, it is a story about the magical science people and their incomprehensible ways. Most of the reasoning goes off-stage, and we're only presented with conclusions. Furthermore, these conclusions tend to be presented in the worst possible way - you've got characters explaining them to other, highly qualified and educated characters using ham-fisted analogies.
Everything is telegraphed to the audience in the simplest possible ways. You don't get people talking like they are among their coworkers, but like they explaining their job to little children.
There's one scene in particular that had me roll my eyes - an astrodynamicist sits with his laptop hooked up directly to the mainframe of a supercomputer, and the laptop displays a huge message 'calculations correct'. Oh, really? That's what the supercomputer actually told you? And you couldn't check it from your office?
This ties well to the discussion in the recent insight posted by mfb - rather than show how the science and engineering 'actually' works, trusting the audience's intelligence to follow and enjoy the ride (like the book did), the film obscures the whole process, basically calls the viewers too dumb to follow, and cementing the divide.Then you've got all the characters from the book show up in the film - but due to time and form constraints, their already shallow personae are even more simplified, to the point where you're just witnessing a string of cameos with little to say, or reason to be there.
So you end up with a film that doesn't have the book's gimmick, character drama, or proper story, and consists of MacGuyver making bombs out of shoelaces, scientists waving their magic computers and spelling the obvious to each other, and pretty visuals peppered with cheap American-centric pathos.
- 19,385
- 15,622
Yikes. Thanks.
- 19,385
- 15,622
I'm sure. Let's hear it for low standards.Drakkith said:
Actually, I've got no room to talk. I watch a lot of action movies that are SUCH junk.
OmCheeto
Gold Member
- 2,536
- 3,663
Glad I didn't read the book first. 
ps. Just now started reading the book.
ps. Just now started reading the book.