The Martian (Film: 2015)

I really enjoyed the film. I have bought the book over last weekend and do intend to read it so I will update here when I have (probably in a few months and I'll probably have forgotten!)

The film was good though. Working in the technology field the phrase "Science the sh*t out of it" has become an office staple.
 
I have bought the book over last weekend and do intend to read it so I will update here when I have (probably in a few months and I'll probably have forgotten!).

I guess the book appeals to the type of SF reader who likes to think about the science behind having humans on Mars. I am one of those readers. I also thought that there was enough 'real' science to justify the hard SF label, even though a few plot holes sprouted with those pesky potatoes in the hab haha.

From a writer's perspective, I also liked how the protagonist was an idealized version of the author. Maybe that's because I used to watch an old black-and-white dubbed (it was Eastern European) Robinson Crusoe TV series during school holidays decades ago. Oh, how I wanted to be on that island as Crusoe. Same thing with The Martian. While reading it I was that guy on the red planet. Enjoy!
 
Loved the book, the film was as close as it could be - there was some more peril to be had, especially on his final journey but by then as a film viewer it would have felt like rehashing previous problems and no character development.

The tarp was a slight issue with me - in the book it's cut from the HAB which in itself was an inflatable tent designed for this. But I'd imagine most people would have dozed off if they'd squeezed any more science into the film.

On that topic - my brother described the book as 'Science Porn'. I love that, most of the maths went over my head - thankfully he's cracking jokes all the way through it.

I also watched the Hollywood Reporter with Ridley speaking about filming it - they were discussing issues with making films and he was quite cavalier in saying he has no issues. Just turns up and films what needs to be done - so the Hollywood by numbers statement rang true when I read that.
 
I watched it finally, but it came up a bit short to me. It lost that connection to Watney that the book had, and focussed more on NASA and what they were doing. It also skipped a few things I thought were important to the story. It looked good, and was okay though. Once again, proving to me that no movie can ever be as good as a book!
 
That's the Hollywood machine at work, they can't think people can hold their attention for two hours on one person. Unless your Tom Hanks.

It could have been really tense having the communication just from his POV and scrap the rest completely.

Ryan Reynolds, Buried.
 
I read the book first and was REALLY looking forward to the film, but was pretty disappointed. Like others have pointed out, there was too much NASA and not enough of Watney. Shame.
 
S
P A

O L
I E
L R
E T
R

Whats for breakfast?
Potato's
Whats for lunch?
Potato's
Whats for dinner?
Potato's

When I watch this movie I thought "You can't live off potato's for years...
Until I saw that Youtube vid you've also added here. But I was wrong with a capital 'WR'.
Who'd have thought eh?
 
Finally watched the film - it was well-made, with good effects. However, they cut out a lot of key jokes from the book - Aquaman, boobies, Staying Alive, and obsessing over soap characters. When jokes were made I felt they lacked punch. I guess Ridley Scott doesn't have a great eye for comedy.

I expected they'd cut the dust storm threat from near the end, as it would drag the film out. But I was really surprised they jumped from the Hermes rescue to having Mark Wattney on Earth - that felt like a mistake to me, as there was always potential for tension on the return journey.

Overall, it was mostly faithful to the book, and probably a good film if you hadn't read it - but I couldn't help but feel that they'd cut out key points in order to make the film more serious, which felt like a missed opportunity.
 
One thing I was surprised at (with the book) was the amount of time for science to 'march past' the book's main story focus.
Namely, the Curiosity and Phoenix rovers found perchlorate in the soil, which would make eating the grown potatoes potentially hazardous for the marooned astronaut- unless he already didn't have a thyroid.

There was no way the writer could have known about this since he wrote the book before the rovers found the 'rocket fuel' in the soil. Of course, if eating rocket fuel didn't kill him, the myocarditis would probably get to him first.

He should've drove to the "face on Mars" structure and start hitting the side until aliens come out. "Hey neighbor-nino! Y'all got anything to eat?" :giggle:
 
I liked the movie, though like many others, was not as good as the book. Then again, I listened to the Audio version performed R.C Bray and IMHO is the best performance of an audio book I've ever listened to.

That being said, I was said the movie didn't win any Oscars!
 
I did the Red Mars trilogy. I don't think The Martian could compete with that as a book but I expect a Red Mars mini-series would be really hard and a movie impossible. Too Long!

psik
 
I enjoyed the book and I enjoyed the movie. But I think of them as separate pieces. Too many things were too different.

I was surprised by how well Matt Damon did. Ever since Team America, I have trouble taking him seriously.
 
Haven't seen the movie- as for the book, the science parts were great; anything involving people not so much.
 
My take on it, from my SFF reviews blog: Science Fiction & Fantasy

The Martian is one of those films with a simple and straightforward plot about which not a lot can be said. There are obvious comparisons with Gravity, the 2013 film which also concentrated on a single astronaut's efforts to get home after a disaster in space. That film concentrated on the experience of being in space – the silence, the awkwardness in a bulky space suit, the disorientation of having no "up" or "down", the sharp clarity of the stations in the airless sunlight, the jaw-dropping views. The Martian is rather more conventional in that most of it takes place on Mars or on Earth. The views of "Mars" are spectacular but not that alien (they were shot in Jordan) so the focus is more on the human and scientific story of how the hero (Matt Damon) manages to stay alive when accidentally left behind on the planet while desperate attempts are made to send a rescue mission.

This is an involving story, one for adults to appreciate. A couple of technical aspects bothered me – maybe they were explained, but if so I missed them. First, although there is much emphasis on the shortage of food and water, oxygen seems in plentiful supply. Huge quantities of it are lost every time the airlock or rover vehicle is opened, and more when hydrazine is burned to create water, but there seem to be no worries about running out of it, so where is it all coming from? The requirement is far more than could feasibly be met by carrying it on the lander.

The second point concerns the decision to send the spacecraft back to collect the stranded man. The huge increase in the time the other astronauts would spend in space is discussed, but only in terms of the length of time they would spend away from their families – the problem of exposure to radiation is not mentioned. Every recent analysis of the practical problems of manned missions to Mars I have read focuses on the danger of radiation as the most difficult to tackle; the background levels of radiation in space and on Mars are much higher than they are on Earth, and one solar flare sweeping though the craft could prove fatal. Genetic damage seems almost inevitable and the cancer risk increased, leading to suggestions that only pensioners should be sent on such missions. Despite this, two of the astronauts are shown at the end of the film, married and with a baby, which made me wince a bit.

More generally, I couldn't help thinking that the feelgood ending was more than a little unlikely. As with Gravity, the likely consequences of any such disasters would be a complete lack of survivors! Despite these niggles it is an enjoyable film, well worth seeing.
 
Only Gravity was not science fiction. It wasdisaster in space. Allof the technology in the movie actually exists and has for a while.

The annoying thing about humans sincethen is that forallofthe talk about its accurac/inaccuracies I have seen no discussion of when Sandra Bullock should have released herself from the spinning arm and what direction she would have gone on release. I thought of that before the release. When I mentioned this on another site someone compared it to talking about Relativity.

Very disappointing for Neil de Grasse Tyson to discuss the movie and say such moveis are good for science education and not talk about that.

psik
 
Having now read and thoroughly enjoyed the book (review) I must decide whether to watch the film. I think I probably will...

Incidentally @Anthony G Williams the book also rather dodged the issue of radiation. It was discussed on the planet with a passage that said without radiation shielding on mars even your "cancers would have cancers." However very little time was spent discussing the issue on the Hermes - the Earth/Mars spacecraft. I did wonder a little about this but felt it was reasonable to assume it is a problem that would have been cracked by this, the third manned mission to Mars. A bit of a deus ex machine I suppose but one I was prepared to live with.
 
Last edited:
The film is quite good, but like any adaptation there are differences. A good effort but not perfect by any means.

One point that irritated me no end was changing the name of Venkat Kapoor to Vincent Kapoor. FFS... Why does Hollywood have such a problem with this sort of thing? :rolleyes:
 
The film is quite good, but like any adaptation there are differences. A good effort but not perfect by any means.

One point that irritated me no end was changing the name of Venkat Kapoor to Vincent Kapoor. FFS... Why does Hollywood have such a problem with this sort of thing? :rolleyes:
Oh that is annoying - he even makes the point in the book that he has many gods to pray to as he is a Hindu!
 
IIRC, Andy Weir admits this is a flaw in his writing. He mentions a couple more in this talk at JPL:
The Martian, by Andy Weir

none of which really detract from the strengths of the book.
That is an excellent presentation from Weir. Interestingly the one other science complaint I had I dismissed as being something he'd probably researched better than me and that was the wind. I seemed to remember reading somewhere some time back that, because of the low density of the atmosphere, you'd hardly feel a 150kph wind on Mars. I figured maybe in a dust storm the inertia would be in the dust so breezed past that one of my complaints. And then Weir goes and says "yeah I knew about that, but I wanted an awesome start to the book..."

Oh and my apologies I did do a search for any other reviews of The Martian and but only found the film ones. Somehow I completely missed that thread.

Oh and also his favourite programming language is also mine!! C++ rules!!!!!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


Back
Top