Gator Shawn
Footballguy
Saw it midday yesterday. I thought it was excellent. 5/5. Would recommend.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Martian (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Mr. Ected
- Start date
Fennis
Footballguy
I usually choose to see movies in good ol' fashioned 2D, but glad we went with 3D for this one. While the 3D was not as important as Avatar or Gravity, I felt it added to the experience. It was beautifully shot.
Overall, I really enjoyed the movie, Very good film. Two thumbs-up.
Overall, I really enjoyed the movie, Very good film. Two thumbs-up.
Maelstrom
Footballguy
Added something to this spoiler after thinking about it some more...
I don't remember if it's addressed specifically or if this actually helps answer the question, but one thing that was a much much bigger plot point in the book was that the Ares 4 site was not only REALLY ####### FAR away - so maybe conditions were very different - but it was also located in a massive crater that possibly could have protected against that type of storm. In the book, Watney's Rover actually flipped on its descent into the crater.
Also, one thing the movie skipped was that he had no knowledge of a major storm that was going to impact him on his journey there, creating a dust cloud which would deplete his solar panels quicker and cause them to take much longer to charge. NASA knew of this but he didn't have his communication system with him for the trip. So in describing the storm, they might have addressed why it didn't impact the MAV.
The main reason the MAV was sent ahead was that it had to make it's fuel to be able to lift off. So it sat there making fuel for a few years before humans showed up - the 30 days they would be there isn't enough time to generate the fuel needed for launch. As to why it was ok, there is always a chance a storm would knock over a MAV, but it is a very freak chance. And they would likely know long before landing, and could potentially scrub the mission if that was to happen before people arrived.
Also, as RUSF18 said, it was a REALLY long distance away. The same storm didn't affect that landing site. The two things he mentioned where the parts I mentioned that the movie left out, but they don't really impact the overall plot too much. Just more emphasis on how unforgiving the environment is.
I don't remember if it's addressed specifically or if this actually helps answer the question, but one thing that was a much much bigger plot point in the book was that the Ares 4 site was not only REALLY ####### FAR away - so maybe conditions were very different - but it was also located in a massive crater that possibly could have protected against that type of storm. In the book, Watney's Rover actually flipped on its descent into the crater.
Also, one thing the movie skipped was that he had no knowledge of a major storm that was going to impact him on his journey there, creating a dust cloud which would deplete his solar panels quicker and cause them to take much longer to charge. NASA knew of this but he didn't have his communication system with him for the trip. So in describing the storm, they might have addressed why it didn't impact the MAV.
The main reason the MAV was sent ahead was that it had to make it's fuel to be able to lift off. So it sat there making fuel for a few years before humans showed up - the 30 days they would be there isn't enough time to generate the fuel needed for launch. As to why it was ok, there is always a chance a storm would knock over a MAV, but it is a very freak chance. And they would likely know long before landing, and could potentially scrub the mission if that was to happen before people arrived.
Also, as RUSF18 said, it was a REALLY long distance away. The same storm didn't affect that landing site. The two things he mentioned where the parts I mentioned that the movie left out, but they don't really impact the overall plot too much. Just more emphasis on how unforgiving the environment is.
Maelstrom
Footballguy
There was talk amongst the crew on the ship in the book that if the intercept with the resupply ship failed, how they would ensure that at least one of them made it back to Earth alive...that conversation included cannibalism. But it was just talk/planning, not something that actually happened in the story.Not nit-picking, just curious...is growing plants inside a HAB on Mars the same as growing plants on Mars? Anyway that's where 'in your face' came from as he one upped Neil Armstrong by colonizing the planet. I think? (Non-book reader)
Book readers, what did we miss? I heard about the cannibalism stuff
During the time when the Ares 3 crew has direct video contact with Earth, Johansen has a uncomfortable conversation with her father in which she implies that Commander Lewis had told her that in the case of the supply mission failing, the rest of the crew wold commit suicide so Johansen could survive (presumably by cannibalism).
Later, during the preparation to receive the supplies, Martinez jokes to Johansen about who she would eat first, saying things about himself tasting the best and remarking "I thought you liked Mexican."
Later, during the preparation to receive the supplies, Martinez jokes to Johansen about who she would eat first, saying things about himself tasting the best and remarking "I thought you liked Mexican."
facook
Footballguy
Cliche is that the book is so much better. The cliche is a cliche because it is true. The book is so much better.
As a stand-alone, the movie is good but not great. Lots of stuff that was important was not explained in the movie ("What's a SOL emmeffers?!?!"). I liked Jess Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty but thought she was laughable here. Wooden. Terrible acting.
Maybe because the first 2:05 stayed true enough to the book I knew exactly what to expect I wasn't super enthralled, and then the departures of the last :15 were
.
People who haven't read the book should love the originality of the story and Damon is a freaking master. Top notch performance from him. If you have read the book, skip it and watch it on cable in 2 years.
As a stand-alone, the movie is good but not great. Lots of stuff that was important was not explained in the movie ("What's a SOL emmeffers?!?!"). I liked Jess Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty but thought she was laughable here. Wooden. Terrible acting.
Maybe because the first 2:05 stayed true enough to the book I knew exactly what to expect I wasn't super enthralled, and then the departures of the last :15 were
.People who haven't read the book should love the originality of the story and Damon is a freaking master. Top notch performance from him. If you have read the book, skip it and watch it on cable in 2 years.
TenTimes
Backhoe Operator
Great post. My wife read this, I didn't, and you summed up both our reactions. She didn't enjoy it as much as I did because of the stuff they left out. She explained it and I just felt the movie was already long and enjoyable enough and was glad they left out what they did.Cliche is that the book is so much better. The cliche is a cliche because it is true. The book is so much better.
As a stand-alone, the movie is good but not great. Lots of stuff that was important was not explained in the movie ("What's a SOL emmeffers?!?!"). I liked Jess Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty but thought she was laughable here. Wooden. Terrible acting.
Maybe because the first 2:05 stayed true enough to the book I knew exactly what to expect I wasn't super enthralled, and then the departures of the last :15 were
People who haven't read the book should love the originality of the story and Damon is a freaking master. Top notch performance from him. If you have read the book, skip it and watch it on cable in 2 years.
Matt Damon was great. Guy knows how to play a marooned astronaut, that's for sure.
Tom Servo
Nittany Beavers
Socrates11
Footballguy
mphtrilogy
Footballguy
I agree. book was better, acting was off, Daniels kinda stuink.. Matt was solid,and Michael pena is good in anything he does.. but the rest of the cast was kinda of a waste, why was Mara in this thing? It was too long, it looked cool, but since I read the book, everything in the movie seemed pretty glossed over.Cliche is that the book is so much better. The cliche is a cliche because it is true. The book is so much better.
As a stand-alone, the movie is good but not great. Lots of stuff that was important was not explained in the movie ("What's a SOL emmeffers?!?!"). I liked Jess Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty but thought she was laughable here. Wooden. Terrible acting.
Maybe because the first 2:05 stayed true enough to the book I knew exactly what to expect I wasn't super enthralled, and then the departures of the last :15 were
People who haven't read the book should love the originality of the story and Damon is a freaking master. Top notch performance from him. If you have read the book, skip it and watch it on cable in 2 years.
it think its a better movie if you didn't read the book, my wife liked it more than I did (she didn't read the book), which is pretty rare for a sci-fi action flick.
snogger
Footballguy
I'm at the point now where I'll read the book AFTER seeing the movie.. Use to be reverse.. If I saw that a book was getting made into a movie I read the book first.. and that worked for something like Lord of the Rings as I feel I would have been lost at times in the movies if I hadn't read the book.I agree. book was better, acting was off, Daniels kinda stuink.. Matt was solid,and Michael pena is good in anything he does.. but the rest of the cast was kinda of a waste, why was Mara in this thing? It was too long, it looked cool, but since I read the book, everything in the movie seemed pretty glossed over.Cliche is that the book is so much better. The cliche is a cliche because it is true. The book is so much better.
As a stand-alone, the movie is good but not great. Lots of stuff that was important was not explained in the movie ("What's a SOL emmeffers?!?!"). I liked Jess Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty but thought she was laughable here. Wooden. Terrible acting.
Maybe because the first 2:05 stayed true enough to the book I knew exactly what to expect I wasn't super enthralled, and then the departures of the last :15 were
People who haven't read the book should love the originality of the story and Damon is a freaking master. Top notch performance from him. If you have read the book, skip it and watch it on cable in 2 years.
it think its a better movie if you didn't read the book, my wife liked it more than I did (she didn't read the book), which is pretty rare for a sci-fi action flick.
But translations from Book to movie almost always have some issues as parts are removed and/or added to make the movie shorter or longer..
Not to mention there have always been times where I've read the book(s) and then while watching the movie think "Really, that's who you choose for that role" ?
Biggest one, for me at least, was having Tom Hanks be the lead for Dan Brown's novels.. I really enjoy Tom Hanks but he just didn't fit the role for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
lombardi
Footballguy
I thought the movie was a great representation of the book. Of course the movie couldn't have every detail in the book and we always whine when movies get it wrong. But I thought the movie captured the charater's personality perfectly, the tone of the book, the humor in the book. I'm normally someone who complains when books are ruined by an unfaithful movie but in this case I thought they hit a home run.
If you want more science and explanation and detail about what happened then read the book, it's all there and it's great. But they did a fantastic job translating so much of the story and the heart of the book into the movie.
If you want more science and explanation and detail about what happened then read the book, it's all there and it's great. But they did a fantastic job translating so much of the story and the heart of the book into the movie.
El Floppo
Footballguy
(what I wrote in the rentals thread)...
was pretty ok on it, but overall solid (well made, paced and acted). thought it was heavily formulaic (pitch: hey- instead of the shuttle or space-station, let's put Sandra Bullock on Mars... she's booked? ok.. how about Matt Damon?) and didn't get into any of the psychological aspects of being stranded on a planet... which would have made it "good" instead of "ok" for me. but yeah, it's well made and kinda fun and feel good, so
we saw it in 3d due to limited window for viewing for us. does not need to be seen in 3d.
found the writing hokey and obvious.
was pretty ok on it, but overall solid (well made, paced and acted). thought it was heavily formulaic (pitch: hey- instead of the shuttle or space-station, let's put Sandra Bullock on Mars... she's booked? ok.. how about Matt Damon?) and didn't get into any of the psychological aspects of being stranded on a planet... which would have made it "good" instead of "ok" for me. but yeah, it's well made and kinda fun and feel good, so
we saw it in 3d due to limited window for viewing for us. does not need to be seen in 3d.
found the writing hokey and obvious.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis
Footballguy
looks like someone should have stayed in the rental thread(what I wrote in the rentals thread)...
was pretty ok on it, but overall solid (well made, paced and acted). thought it was heavily formulaic (pitch: hey- instead of the shuttle or space-station, let's put Sandra Bullock on Mars... she's booked? ok.. how about Matt Damon?) and didn't get into any of the psychological aspects of being stranded on a planet... which would have made it "good" instead of "ok" for me. but yeah, it's well made and kinda fun and feel good, so
we saw it in 3d due to limited window for viewing for us. does not need to be seen in 3d.
found the writing hokey and obvious.
Riversco
Footballguy
This is mostly Cast Away in Space, except with worse writing and acting. I think it needed to do more but audiences seem really happy with it.
I can't help but compare the two. Hanks did a great job showing us the emotions of a person stranded alone with little hope of rescue. Damon is an emotionless zombie in comparison.
I can't help but compare the two. Hanks did a great job showing us the emotions of a person stranded alone with little hope of rescue. Damon is an emotionless zombie in comparison.
El Floppo
Footballguy
wife and I were talking about what didn't work for us- lack of real emotions was high on the list. IMO, the hokey/obvious writing was at fault more than the actors. Damon's character didn't have much of a chance to be more than a series of bad punchlines and working guide to mcguyvering survival.
Joe Mammy
Footballguy
I finished the book yesterday and saw the movie today...
My Favorite Martian was---------the BOOK in a landslide.
This should not spoil anything but tread with caution.
The movie left out the dust storm, the rover wreck and they changed the ending.
I felt so much more emotion reading the book, if I hadn't read it beforehand I could have snoozed during the flick. And as someone else mentioned Wiig was horribly miscast- she would have been perfect if they let her say the F word as many times as she did in the book, instead she muttered one SH word.
So to recap-
Book - 4 out of 5 stars.
Movie- 2 out of 5 stars.
My Favorite Martian was---------the BOOK in a landslide.
This should not spoil anything but tread with caution.
The movie left out the dust storm, the rover wreck and they changed the ending.
I felt so much more emotion reading the book, if I hadn't read it beforehand I could have snoozed during the flick. And as someone else mentioned Wiig was horribly miscast- she would have been perfect if they let her say the F word as many times as she did in the book, instead she muttered one SH word.
So to recap-
Book - 4 out of 5 stars.
Movie- 2 out of 5 stars.
Tom Servo
Nittany Beavers
Tom Servo
Nittany Beavers
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
Jamesbrownkid
Footballguy
Kind of want to see it but I know it is going to suck
sports_fan
Footballguy
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
Saw it last night. Thought it was solid.
El Floppo
Footballguy
sounds better, tbh. Martian could've used more of this....
"As the days grow into months, Draper slowly begins to crack from the prolonged isolation. He watches helplessly as his mothership, an inaccessible "supermarket", periodically orbits overhead; without fuel, the spaceship cannot respond to his radioed order to land."
I wasn't a big fan- but it definitely doesn't suck. It's Ridley Scott and a decent cast- a good watch, but not enduring.
Jamesbrownkid
Footballguy
He hasn't made a quality movie in 20 years at least.El Floppo said:
El Floppo
Footballguy
yeah, that's wrong.
some duds for sure, but a lot of very decent stuff mixed in. and for sci-fi, off the top of my head he's as can't miss a guy as there is IMO. again- not a great film by any stretch... but a solid 6, and worth watching.
Jamesbrownkid
Footballguy
Can't miss for sci-fi? cmon Prometheus was garbage. I agree he has some decent movies so I guess I should have said he hasn't made a great film since Legend IMO. Legend - Aliens and Blade Runner are his greats.
El Floppo
Footballguy
prometheus was seriously flawed, sure. but still a fun watch- for me, and a lot of others. calling it garbage? hyperbole/trollish.
but you're right- BlackHawk Down, Gladiator and American Gangster were cataclysimacally bad- terrible director.
El Floppo
Footballguy
Jamesbrownkid
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
El Floppo
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Found this to be a terrific movie. 
The audience in my theater appeared to be in complete agreement with how good it was.
The audience in my theater appeared to be in complete agreement with how good it was.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
El Floppo
Footballguy
ok- I buy that, given the previuos comments.
but then again, you thought this was a terrific movie, so not sure where to put your comment either.
The General
Footballguy
Reading the book. Minor spoiler perhaps so stop reading if you don't want info:
It's enjoyable so far but I'm beginning to skim over all the explanations of the processes he's going through to create water, soil, etc. Does this continue for the entire book?
It's enjoyable so far but I'm beginning to skim over all the explanations of the processes he's going through to create water, soil, etc. Does this continue for the entire book?
Similar threads
