The Martian - Grading & Discussion

[Trekker4747]

In that case then, I reckon the previews told you just the right amount of information you needed to let you avoid this, since Alien first contact isn't what this movie is remotely about.

It's like complaining that the trailers for Star Wars reveal it's set in space, rather than the documentary about celebrity feuds that you really wanted instead.

Or seeing Titanic because you see old Rose in the previews, pretty obvious in a tragic tale that she'd lose the love of her life when the ship sank. How the story is told, and the work of the actors doing it is every bit as important as the plot itself.

I'm not so sure about the Titanic example, the film's quite clever in that it tells us Rose's name was once Dawson, sure we might join the dots and figure out she and Jack don't have decades of marriage together, but early on in the film it's perfectly plausible that both Rose and Jack survive, get married and then, who knows, maybe Jack leaves her in 1925 or he dies in 1929, or she leaves him in 1930. It's definitely a feint to give us hope that Jack survives as well.

No, it's pretty telegraphed, in just knowing how movies -and tragedies themselves- work that Jack's survival wasn't likely. Hell, he was a third-class male passenger that alone doesn't put the odds in his favor. That said, when watching the movie I was truly upset Jack died and wanted to see him and Rose live happily ever after. It's possible I was a teenage girl in 1997.

Regardless, knowing the general arc or premise of a story shouldn't negate enjoying it unless there's some aspect of it that'd negate needing to see it. I'm going to use "The Sixth Sense" as an example. Right up until the last few minutes of the movie it's a pretty mediocre, tame, movie that's nothing spectacular. But then the surprise ending come in those final few moments that pretty much blows the lid off the entire thing, making it all worth it. Certainly a case where spoiling the movie would ruin it as the movie is more about the ending than the journey. (Or at least the point in watching the movie.)

With "The Martian" it's clear the point of the movie isn't the survival of Damon's character as it's pretty much a given just given the type of movie it is. (Likening it to Apollo 13 is probably a good idea) The point of the movie is the journey he and the rest of the characters take through the entire ordeal. So knowing that "The Martian" is a stranded, human, astronaut who likely survives his ordeal shouldn't ruin the movie. The movie isn't about the fate of the characters' lives but the journey they take through it all. I mean in "Lord of the Rings" the entire premise is destroying the three rings, something that's pretty much a given they'll succeed in given the adventure movie tropes and that it'd be a waste of everyone's time to spend so much time on a doomed mission.

But the point of the movie isn't whether they succeed in their quest but it's what happens through it all, the trials they face and the impact it has on them.

 

[Reverend]

It's not a film about Mark Watney getting home, it's a story about *how* he survived alone on a sterile, inhospitable planet long enough to be rescued. It's about the trials and tribulations.

This! Nicely stated, sir Reverend!

The same could be said for just about any disaster or castaway type survival story. Most of the time the protagonist survives/escapes their ordeal in the end and on the odd occasion when they don't, usually the person they care about the most does, almost always due to the self-sacrifice of said protagonist.

These stories almost always get their drama from the obstacles that must be overcome in order to survive. That's the whole point. It's mostly about spirit, ingenuity, adaptability and the will to keep going in the face of impossible odds.

 

[JD]

Maybe we saw different previews. I previews saw revealed the stranding, struggle to survive, and the eventual cheering at his being rescued. The rest is simply connecting the dots in between.

I wish mystery at who/what The Martian actually was had been preserved. If the previews had left me wondering if the Martian represented some sort of first contact, or something like that, I probably would have been first in line.

But I know who the martian is, pretty much what his dilemma is, and that he's eventually rescued. So why bother going to a theater? I'll see it on one of my subscription channels or Netflix sooner or later.

I honestly never even considered that there would be any question on anyone's part who/what The Martian was. I haven't read the book, so I went into the trailers blind, and thought most of them were great. They do what I always want trailers to do, gave me a good feel for the movie, but didn't reveal to much of the story.
I had always assumed the cheering in the trailer was just because they found him alive. I thought one of the trailers even showed them celebrating after they found a sign or something he had left outside of his habitat.

Besides, the movie is based on a bestselling book, so there's not much of a point in secrecy. Millions of people already know the story, so there's no point hiding things.

 

[Owain Taggart]

It's mostly about spirit, ingenuity, adaptability and the will to keep going in the face of impossible odds.

I wholeheartedly agree. Also in this particular case, the character's humour is an important point of survival. It's what keeps him going when faced with the odds he's got.

I had always assumed the cheering in the trailer was just because they found him alive. I thought one of the trailers even showed them celebrating after they found a sign or something he had left outside of his habitat.

You've got it in one. We have a winner!

Not sure how the movie's handling it, but in the book, interaction with the crew is minimal.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Ridley Scott knew about the water on Mars two months ago.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Its like Apollo 13. If you knew its history, you know the crew survives and makes it back to Earth. Does knowing this fact spoil the movie? No.

The same is true of The Martian. Yes, Mark Watney makes it back to Earth. Knowing this does not spoil the movie.

Spoiler: Something something

Except we don't know that. The book ends with him getting off Mars. It doesn't reveal if the Ares crew gets back to Earth after recovering Watney. Presumably they do, but that's outside the scope of the story Weir tells.

 

[Starkers]

Or seeing Titanic because you see old Rose in the previews, pretty obvious in a tragic tale that she'd lose the love of her life when the ship sank. How the story is told, and the work of the actors doing it is every bit as important as the plot itself.

I'm not so sure about the Titanic example, the film's quite clever in that it tells us Rose's name was once Dawson, sure we might join the dots and figure out she and Jack don't have decades of marriage together, but early on in the film it's perfectly plausible that both Rose and Jack survive, get married and then, who knows, maybe Jack leaves her in 1925 or he dies in 1929, or she leaves him in 1930. It's definitely a feint to give us hope that Jack survives as well.

No, it's pretty telegraphed, in just knowing how movies -and tragedies themselves- work that Jack's survival wasn't likely. Hell, he was a third-class male passenger that alone doesn't put the odds in his favor. That said, when watching the movie I was truly upset Jack died and wanted to see him and Rose live happily ever after. It's possible I was a teenage girl in 1997.

Regardless, knowing the general arc or premise of a story should negate enjoying it unless there's some aspect of it that'd negate needing to see it. I'm going to use "The Sixth Sense" as an example. Right up until the last few minutes of the movie it's a pretty mediocre, tame, movie that's nothing spectacular. But then the surprise ending come in those final few movies that pretty much blows the lid off the entire thing, making it all worth it. Certainly a case where spoiling the movie would ruin it as the movie is more about the ending than the journey. (Or at least the point in watching the movie.)

With "The Martian" it's clear the point of the movie isn't the survival of Damon's character as it's pretty much a given just given the type of movie it is. (Likening it to Apollo 13 is probably a good idea) The point of the movie is the journey he and the rest of the characters take through the entire ordeal. So knowing that "The Martian" is a stranded, human, astronaut who likely survives his ordeal shouldn't ruin the movie. The movie isn't about the fate of the characters' lives but the journey they take through it all. I mean in "Lord of the Rings" the entire premise is destroying the three rings, something that's pretty much a given they'll succeed in given the adventure movie tropes and that it'd be a waste of everyone's time to spend so much time on a doomed mission.

But the point of the movie isn't whether they succeed in their quest but it's what happens through it all, the trials they face and the impact it has on them.

Well I still think Jack's fate isn't certain from the get go, and that the use of the name Dawson does give you hope (at least the first time you watch the film)

That's an interesting view re The Sixth Sense, my own feelings are kind of the reverse, I thought it was a downright creepy horror film that was almost ruined by the twist (which I figured out in the opening five minutes)

Its like Apollo 13. If you knew its history, you know the crew survives and makes it back to Earth. Does knowing this fact spoil the movie? No.

The same is true of The Martian. Yes, Mark Watney makes it back to Earth. Knowing this does not spoil the movie.

Spoiler: Something something

Except we don't know that. The book ends with him getting off Mars. It doesn't reveal if the Ares crew gets back to Earth after recovering Watney. Presumably they do, but that's outside the scope of the story Weir tells.

The other thing the trailer gives away is that

Spoiler: spoiler

the crew of the Ares are the ones who go back for him

, I can accept that in most cases the castaway is rescued (though to be honest reading the book I had a few doubts, even though I desperately wanted Watney to survive) and it's fairly obvious that he finds a way to communicate with NASA but the

Spoiler: spoiler

involvement of Chastain and co

could have been left as a surprise for the viewer. I really just don't understand trailer makers, there's so many ways to make an engaging trailer whilst not revealing major plot points yet they seem to go out of their way to spoil as much of a film as possible these days.

 

[intrinsical]

Its like Apollo 13. If you knew its history, you know the crew survives and makes it back to Earth. Does knowing this fact spoil the movie? No.

The same is true of The Martian. Yes, Mark Watney makes it back to Earth. Knowing this does not spoil the movie.

Spoiler: Something something

Except we don't know that. The book ends with him getting off Mars. It doesn't reveal if the Ares crew gets back to Earth after recovering Watney. Presumably they do, but that's outside the scope of the story Weir tells.

Well, it depends on which version of the novel you've read. Some versions ends where you described. Other versions see him back on Earth.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Spoiler: Something something

Except we don't know that. The book ends with him getting off Mars. It doesn't reveal if the Ares crew gets back to Earth after recovering Watney. Presumably they do, but that's outside the scope of the story Weir tells.

Well, it depends on which version of the novel you've read. Some versions ends where you described. Other versions see him back on Earth.

I read the mass market paperback, with Matt Damon on the cover. Bought it last month. It does not end with Watney on Earth.

As a gripping page-turner, I thought The Martian was compelling. As a piece of fiction, it was dire. Characterizations for anyone other than Watney were non-existent (to the point where I could tell none of the NASA characters apart; I was never sure who was superior to whom in the hierarchy), and even Watney's characterization rang false to me because there were never any moments where he convinced me that he felt he was all alone on Mars and there was a near 100% chance that he wouldn't survive.

I'll see the movie -- eventually -- because I enjoy Ridley Scott's work and I think the actors can only improve upon the material. But I can't recommend the book.

 

[intrinsical]

Spoiler: Something something

Except we don't know that. The book ends with him getting off Mars. It doesn't reveal if the Ares crew gets back to Earth after recovering Watney. Presumably they do, but that's outside the scope of the story Weir tells.

Well, it depends on which version of the novel you've read. Some versions ends where you described. Other versions see him back on Earth.

I read the mass market paperback, with Matt Damon on the cover. Bought it last month. It does not end with Watney on Earth.

As a gripping page-turner, I thought The Martian was compelling. As a piece of fiction, it was dire. Characterizations for anyone other than Watney were non-existent (to the point where I could tell none of the NASA characters apart; I was never sure who was superior to whom in the hierarchy), and even Watney's characterization rang false to me because there were never any moments where he convinced me that he felt he was all alone on Mars and there was a near 100% chance that he wouldn't survive.

I'll see the movie -- eventually -- because I enjoy Ridley Scott's work and I think the actors can only improve upon the material. But I can't recommend the book.

I have the same feelings as you do. I actually bought the novel three months ago but stopped reading it about a third of the way through due to the reasons you cited. The maths involved was trivial, really just simple addition and multiplication. The "science" part wasn't interesting enough to keep my attention. The characterization of Watney was slim.

However I knew I wanted to watch the movie and I wanted to compare the viewing experience with the experience of reading the book. So I powered through over the last week and I am glad I did.

 

[IcecreamLtDan]

The story as it was originally written and freely released on his website one chapter at a time, had an epilogue with Mark Whatney back on Earth. There was apparantly a bit of controversy over a conversation he had with a young person, a young girl IIRC, where he used the "F" word. From what I understand, Mr. Weir removed that section when the story became so popular that it was compiled and began being sold as an Ebook.

 

[intrinsical]

Alright I've just watched The Martian. Overall, I think the movie is better than the novel itself. I found that the novel focused a little too much on the math.. Ridley Scott on the other hand focused on telling the story. What I am most impressed with is how artfully he replaced several long monologues in the novel with a simple shot, using either the scene or the actor's expression to convey several pages worth of material in just a few seconds. For example, I really loved how Ridley Scott managed to convey the how much Mark Watney has suffered while surviving on Mars with a single shot at around Sol 400.

Here's what I loved most about the movie:

1) The stunning yet desolate vistas of Mars. How small the habitat and rover are in comparison to the red planet. The movie is worth watching for these scenery shots alone.
2) Hermes, its a beautiful ship. Okay, a couple of the zero-g scenes weren't as well executed as I'ld like and looked fake, but its forgivable.
3) Matt Damon as Mark Watney, the wisecracking humor was spot on.
4) MAV and Hermes rendezvous above Mars. The movie changed this part of the story, for the better. Its more dramatic.
5) The ending.

A solid A from me.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Just saw the movie last night (10:35 PM showing, Scotiabank Theater, Toronto) and must say, it was a great two hours of sci-fi movie-making, as well as a great adaptation of the novel.

Recent comments aside, Matt Damon was great as Mark Watney; he brought the character to life so well it was uncanny. Chiwetel Enjofor was great as Dr. Kapoor and made me forget that he was a black guy playing an Indian character. Loved Donald Glover's science guy and his calculation he made, was amazed at the SFX and what it conveyed of Mars and space, loved the Hermes design (and how it reminded me of the Leonov from 2010: The Year We Make Contact, and thought the the 3D added to the movie. The use of the hated (by Watney) disco songs was amazing, as well as the addition of 'Love Train' at the end. Speaking of the ending-amazing.

All in all, an amazing and intelligent sci-fi movie, one that I hope will gross a lot of money, and (maybe) this time will win big at the Oscars (Best PictureBest PictureBest PictureBest Picture!) Take a bow, Ridley and everybody else who worked on the movie.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Won't be able to see it until next week, but thanks for putting up some reviews. I've had a good feeling about this movie.

 

[Romulan_spy]

A+

Amazing movie!!

- Breathtaking visuals of Mars
- Hermes looked amazing
- Pacing was perfect. The movie did not feel too long. They cut out some of the parts from the book so that Whatney's trek on Mars did not drag on too much while still giving us a sense of the huge ordeal Whatney overcomes.
- The NASA director felt like less than an a--hole in the movie than in the book
- Some great tense scenes that are very well executed
- Whatney's humor and wit come through. Matt Damon does a fantastic job
- Some great emotional scenes, not just the rescue at the end but also in the quiet scenes like when Whatney writes a letter to his parents while contemplating the Mars vista.
- Disco music was great!

Overall, a very well executed movie with a great script, actors, pacing, visuals that keeps you entertained from start to finish with humor, tension and wonderful character moments.

 

[Commander Richard]

Saw it and give it an 'A'.

You either know what happens or you've heard about what happens but this doesn't spoil the movie any. It's a great ride and a harrowing journey filled with tension and even a few twists and surprises (if you don't spoil yourself too much).

• So, Matt Damon and Jessica Chastain went right into another space movie after Interstellar? Guess they really wanted in on this project.
  
  
• Author Andy Weir created a great character with humor and Matt Damon really brought him to life. His best moments aren't even in the trailer. He felt like a real person as opposed to some wise-cracking movie character. I also appreciate Damon's dedication to losing weight.
  
  
• Mars has 0.38 Earth gravity. Was it portrayed accurately in the movie? Just a thought. Had to ask.
  
  
• I wondered where Watney got his protein. You can't live on potatoes. Then we saw that he was still eating the food rations. Did he still get enough protein though?
  
  
• What was with all the rashes on Watney's body towards the end?
  
  
• I saw a picture of this person a week or so ago and didn't recognize her. Was it Tea Leoni? Wasn't sure. Turned out to be Kristen Wiig. Love her look in the movie and I loved seeing her in a serious dramatic role, something I don't think I've ever seen before. SNL keeps churning 'em out and I like this career turn.
  
  
• I liked that little twist at the end in the hospital room during the closing credits/montage. You know what I'm talking about.
  
  
• My movie-going experience wasn't the best. I went to one theater, got my ticket and sat down. Then the projector broke so I had to drive to the other side of town to another theatre. On the way home though I decided to set the temperature in the car to 27 degrees celsius, the same temperature as in the rover Watney used and it's not that bad actually. Figured it would be too hot. Hey, I was curious.

 

[publiusr]

Liked the Hermes ship. It is what the Interstellar ship needed to be.
http://www.space.com/30733-the-martian-nasa-real-mars-mission-plans.html

http://www.wired.com/2015/08/spinning-spacecraft-martian-work/

http://the-martian-movie.tumblr.com...eship-hermes-and-the-ares-3-mission-advancing

Perhaps a bit more doable
http://francisdrakex.deviantart.com/art/Hermes-from-The-Martian-485080855

The real thing?
http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/s...rs---A-Critical-Step-Toward-the-Red-Planet.pdf

 

[Sto-Vo-Kory]

This movie is a love letter to science and nerds. Absolutely brilliant film.

I always wanted to fly like Iron Man, too.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I saw it tonight. I absolutely loved it. The cast were all perfect in the movie. The Martian landscape looked absolutely beautiful.

 

[Zonker]

I've got to agree with everyone else and say this was a great movie. Not only was it a great hard sci-fi but it was also a great movie on it's own. The plot's engaging the pacing is great, It's funny at the right moments and emotional when it should be. One of the best movies I've seen in a while. My only problem was that it was really long and I had one of those giant cokes they give you at theaters and consequentially I missed part of the climax.

[*]Mars has 0.38 Earth gravity. Was it portrayed accurately in the movie? Just a thought. Had to ask.

It was not. Ridley Scott basically said he couldn't get enough bang for his buck portraying the gravity perfectly. Frankly I agree. Zero gravity shots are usually really cool and draw the audience in but showing less gravity doesn't quite have the same appeal. A good 70-80% of the movie takes place on Mars and accurately portraying the gravity would not only be a pain in the ass but it would also be super expensive. He kind of rationalized it by saying that the space suit is heavy enough to weigh him down.

[*]I liked that little twist at the end in the hospital room during the closing credits/montage. You know what I'm talking about.

I actually don't remember that scene, what was it?