The Martian by Andy Weir

[Motokid600]

Holy crap i just saw the trailer with All Along the Watchtower in it. I am now officially HYPED for this movie. Haven’t been exited for a movie since... idk, Avatar maybe. Incredible. And SEAN BEAN is in it. Thats awesome. Hope he lives this time around.

So the book is on its way. Should be here tomorrow. I got a month to read it before the movie.

[sp1989]

Holy crap i just saw the trailer with All Along the Watchtower in it. I am now officially HYPED for this movie. Haven’t been exited for a movie since... idk, Avatar maybe. Incredible. And SEAN BEAN is in it. Thats awesome. Hope he lives this time around.

So the book is on its way. Should be here tomorrow. I got a month to read it before the movie.

Honestly the average read time for the Martian is a day. I know different people are busy and have different schedule but honestly it's just impossible to put down. I have lended my copy to 4 people. All of them read it in a day or less. All of them are extremely busy people and motored through it.

- - - Updated - - -

We've had these discissions before on this forum and I respect your opinion. But that doesn't change the fact that those two movies are highly polarizing. Some people really like them while plenty of others immediately think of them when the tooic of movies that are visually stunning but otherwise flawed is raised. I am looking forward to hearing what others think about The Martian when it is released. Hopefully it manages to live up to our high expectations.

Yea the opinions of Gravity and Interstellar are very polarizing. The problem is a difference in people. There are essentially three types. People who love story, people who love visuals and then the most annoying people in my opinion. The people who are incapable of suspension reality for a science fiction movie. So what the movies were touted as scientifically accurate! Whoops Hollywood is trying sell a movie! Even beyond on that there are people who want any movie that is based space to be realistic. Those are the people who you just can't argue with. It's a movie and it's meant to be entertaining. Even Andy Weir who went through painstaking efforts to ensure that the Martian feels realistic admitted he had to take dramatic license with the science just to make it entertaining. Lack of scientific accuracy doesn't bother me as long as it's not too insane. It needs to have a good story and it needs to look good. What else do you need in a motion picture. Here is the truth Gravity was visually stunning and the space infrastructure was gorgeous. However you watch it once and you really can watch it again. It's just not that entertaining. In many ways it's boring. At this point I would love to watch it on mute with a great sound track. Or even the soundtrack from interstellar. Interstellar again looked fantastic and actually had a great and compelling story. I even think most people would agree 3/4 of the movie is fantastic. I think the end however no spoilers is what throws people off. Again no spoilers but the power of love is boring.

- - - Updated - - -

First sign of product placement!! Is this ok? What do you think. Space suits of the future brought to you by Under Armor? Will there be unfortunate product placements like this throughout the movie? Watney potatoes brought to you by Idaho! Do you care? Does it hurt the movie?

[tater]

I don't see your point here.

Both Gravity and Interstellar had a good story, and they were good movies.

Interstellar was just awful as SF. Not just the terrible attention to science detail, the plot was bad, too.

- - - Updated - - -

The hab ring in that trailer looks to be rotating around once per minute. It needs to do over 3.5 to get to martian gravity.

[sp1989]

A full clip from the martain!! full clip from the movie coming in hot. I guess Yahoo is good for things sometimes. Its the storm and the abort.

http://movies.yahoo.com/video/martian-clip-storm-report-153000544.html

Edited September 8, 2015 by sp1989

[Dodgey]

Can we not have the Gravity Interstellar discussion here please. It's a quick way to ruin a good thread.

And I think that I will refrain from watching that, I've read the book so it's not a question of spoilers but I'm really looking forward to the reveal on the big screen. Anyone else doing the same?

[Wingman703]

Can we not have the Gravity Interstellar discussion here please. It's a quick way to ruin a good thread.

And I think that I will refrain from watching that, I've read the book so it's not a question of spoilers but I'm really looking forward to the reveal on the big screen. Anyone else doing the same?

I held out for about two hours... then my curiosity overwhelmed me.

I can safely say no dramatic reveals. Its 40 seconds of the crew making the abort decision, and then a quick cut of Watney getting hit by the dish. Set/shots look stunning just from that quick bite however.

Also, all the US audiences are going to be confuzzled... all measurements are in Km, Newtons, ect, sticking with the book.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Wingman703

[sp1989]

Can we not have the Gravity Interstellar discussion here please. It's a quick way to ruin a good thread.

And I think that I will refrain from watching that, I've read the book so it's not a question of spoilers but I'm really looking forward to the reveal on the big screen. Anyone else doing the same?

Fact!!!

Anyway intresting video.

[sp1989]

Another interesting video

[RainDreamer]

I was about to link the vids. So hyped about the movie lol.

[PakledHostage]

Can we not have the Gravity Interstellar discussion here please. It's a quick way to ruin a good thread.

That was my fault... Sorry. I started it with my response to sp1989. I should have foreseen that the mere mention of those two movies could derail this thread.

And I think that I will refrain from watching that, I've read the book so it's not a question of spoilers but I'm really looking forward to the reveal on the big screen. Anyone else doing the same?

Yeah, I am going to hold off on watching anything more than the official trailers before I see the film. It is less than a month away; I have enough to keep me busy until then.

[SpaceXray]

Interstellar was just awful as SF. Not just the terrible attention to science detail, the plot was bad, too.

I will have to disagree here. The movie was especially praised for it's scientific detail, as well as for its plot.

All of the concepts and physics in the movie were realistic to a very good extent. Some small sacrifices had to be made, like the director and the main scientific advisor Kip Thorne wrote in his book, The Science of Interstellar, such as skipping past some maneuvers which would make the movie too long at boring for most audiences. It is nearly impossible to make any movie 100% scientifically accurate. No move is without a sin.

Back to topic. Very hyped for The Martian like most of you guys are, very happy more proper space movies keep coming out. Hope we see something even better in 2016! Though now we've been to the Space Shuttle, ISS, Tiangong, Hubble, Mars, another planetary system. Next stop- Titan?

Edited September 9, 2015 by SpaceXray

[Majorjim!]

I will have to disagree here. The movie was especially praised for it's scientific detail, as well as for its plot.

All of the concepts and physics in the movie were realistic to a very good extent. Some small sacrifices had to be made, like the director and the main scientific advisor Kip Thorne wrote in his book, The Science of Interstellar, such as skipping past some maneuvers which would make the movie too long at boring for most audiences. It is nearly impossible to make any movie 100% scientifically accurate. No move is without a sin.

Back to topic. Very hyped for The Martian like most of you guys are, very happy more proper space movies keep coming out. Hope we see something even better in 2016! Though now we've been to the Space Shuttle, ISS, Tiangong, Hubble, Mars, another planetary system. Next stop- Titan?

I have very mixed feelings about interstellar. Some things where great. The soundtrack, some of the scenes where stunning, some where really disappointing. I was expecting some from orbit, drawn out scenes of the planets. They felt like sets because of the lack of this.

I loved the voice of the machine intelligence but thought the body was odd. Also, the one on the water planet is directly responsible for the death of Doyle. Look how fast he came back HOLDING a human compared to the speed he went to her aid.

And if the Ranger can SSTO on a planet with greater gravity than Earth why does it need a rocket to get it into Earth orbit.

I think they missed a few opportunities to make it a more beautiful movie, which is sad.

I just realized this is off topic. Feel free to ignore it so it doesn't proliferate any further into the thread.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Majorjim

[HafCoJoe]

Interstellar was imo a great movie, but that doesn't mean they could've shortened it by 30 minutes and still had it be great. XD Inside joke hehe... I did thoroughly enjoy it but I wish more of it was realistic. TARS was a bit far fetched as well as a few other small things like the existence of such a small SSTO.

[tater]

I will have to disagree here. The movie was especially praised for it's scientific detail, as well as for its plot.

Apparently by people unfamiliar with basic astrophysics or good plots.

ObMartian: I'm less pleased about the mountainous terrain, though I understand their rationale(s) for doing so (artistic). I also see that Weir will be attending a screening at George RR Martin's theater in Santa Fe... maybe I'll find out about tickets, it's only 40 minutes from my house.

[SpaceXray]

I have very mixed feelings about interstellar. Some things where great. The soundtrack, some of the scenes where stunning, some where really disappointing. I was expecting some from orbit, drawn out scenes of the planets. They felt like sets because of the lack of this.

I loved the voice of the machine intelligence but thought the body was odd. Also, the one on the water planet is directly responsible for the death of Doyle. Look how fast he came back HOLDING a human compared to the speed he went to her aid.

And if the Ranger can SSTO on a planet with greater gravity than Earth why does it need a rocket to get it into Earth orbit.

I think they missed a few opportunities to make it a more beautiful movie, which is sad.

I just realized this is off topic. Feel free to ignore it so it doesn't proliferate any further into the thread.

It will take too much time to explain the other points, and it had been done before, but one which you should understand yourself is why they launched the 2 Rangers on a Saturn V.

The SSTO's used very expensive and rare fuel, and making them waste it on taking off from Earth when they can use cheaper rocket fuel makes no sense. One more thing, is that they wouldn't have to do 3 separate launches, since the rocket also carried some supplies with the Rangers(seen between the Rangers. So yeah, much easier to launch 2 Rangers + some additional supplies for the trip on 1 rocket.

Lastly it was for dramatic effect and to keep us bound within the realm of familiar technology. That launch was very accurate and beautiful. Still remember the seats shaking in the cinema from the sound.

One thing I don't understand about the Hermes in the film is why they made it so unnecessarily big and complex, and how did they actually build it(say, the artificial gravity ring).

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently by people unfamiliar with basic astrophysics or good plots.

ObMartian: I'm less pleased about the mountainous terrain, though I understand their rationale(s) for doing so (artistic). I also see that Weir will be attending a screening at George RR Martin's theater in Santa Fe... maybe I'll find out about tickets, it's only 40 minutes from my house.

I would say the same about you, or you immediately set 2001 as he absolute standard for sci-if movies. And never did I mention that the movie was 100% accurate. For Hollywood standards, it was VERY accurate.

[RocketBlam]

I'm not exaggerating: I think The Martian is the worst book I've ever tried to read. I hated it. His nerdy speech got old fast, the "funny" parts weren't funny at all, and the thing was written with prose you'd expect from a Facebook post. I honestly have never hated a book like this before.

I don't want to insult anyone, if you liked it that's fine, but God, it is awful.

[RainDreamer]

Hah yeah, the guy is writing a kind of blog after all.

And there are always differing taste on any kind of work, so don't worry if you don't like it. Not like you were insulting us for liking something you don't like.

I still enjoy it, mostly because of the scientific accuracy that is rarely seen these days in any kind of sci-fi. But for writing styles, I will have to give it to writers of the older generations, like Frank Herbert.

[Motokid600]

I'm not exaggerating: I think The Martian is the worst book I've ever tried to read. I hated it. His nerdy speech got old fast, the "funny" parts weren't funny at all, and the thing was written with prose you'd expect from a Facebook post. I honestly have never hated a book like this before.

I don't want to insult anyone, if you liked it that's fine, but God, it is awful in my opinion

Fixed that for you. But honestly...the worst book? Really? C'mon....Fahrenheit 451 takes that crown imo.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Motokid600

[tater]

I would say the same about you, or you immediately set 2001 as he absolute standard for sci-if movies. And never did I mention that the movie was 100% accurate. For Hollywood standards, it was VERY accurate.

My usual description of 2001 is that it's a "great" SF movie, but it's not a good SF movie. Meaning it is important in many aspects, but not very well done overall.

"For Hollywood standards" is an incredibly low bar. In interstellar, the space travel was all absurd, and no more accurate than Star Wars (tiny SSTOs). The general relativity nonsense was driven by a desire to avoid dilation effects... but they were passing through an event horizon, twice, so any other dilation effects aren't even noise. That's aside from wasting time going to a planet that would not possibly be habitable due to radiation (water planet). But love alters spacetime, so it's got that accuracy going for it?

The Martian was written as a script I think. It was made to be a movie from the start (good business plan by the writer).

[sp1989]

I'm not exaggerating: I think The Martian is the worst book I've ever tried to read. I hated it. His nerdy speech got old fast, the "funny" parts weren't funny at all, and the thing was written with prose you'd expect from a Facebook post. I honestly have never hated a book like this before.

I don't want to insult anyone, if you liked it that's fine, but God, it is awful.

Hey that is your opinion. Honestly I am happy to finally hear that someone didn't like the book. It's almost good to hear because I have heard and seen nothing but support and love for the Martian. However just FYI I feel you are deep in the minority.

- - - Updated - - -

My usual description of 2001 is that it's a "great" SF movie, but it's not a good SF movie. Meaning it is important in many aspects, but not very well done overall.

"For Hollywood standards" is an incredibly low bar. In interstellar, the space travel was all absurd, and no more accurate than Star Wars (tiny SSTOs). The general relativity nonsense was driven by a desire to avoid dilation effects... but they were passing through an event horizon, twice, so any other dilation effects aren't even noise. That's aside from wasting time going to a planet that would not possibly be habitable due to radiation (water planet). But love alters spacetime, so it's got that accuracy going for it?

The Martian was written as a script I think. It was made to be a movie from the start (good business plan by the writer).

Andy Weir wrote it in installments. It was a bunch stories on his website that focused on this stranded astronaut on Mars. He got so much acclaim from it he decided to make it an e-book. It was just a hobby for him. He didn't even really want to sell it as a book. So he charged 99 cents for it as an ebook. It was then so popular as an ebook he got requests from publishing houses. He got it published and then the same week it was published he got the contract for the movie. However it was not Andy Weirs intention for it to become a movie. I think every writer wants their books to become a movie but he didn't start that way.

[TheSaint]

I'm not exaggerating: I think The Martian is the worst book I've ever tried to read. I hated it. His nerdy speech got old fast, the "funny" parts weren't funny at all, and the thing was written with prose you'd expect from a Facebook post. I honestly have never hated a book like this before.

I don't want to insult anyone, if you liked it that's fine, but God, it is awful.

Different strokes. As I'm fond of saying, "Think of the worst movie you've ever seen. Somewhere there is someone who thinks that was the greatest movie ever made. And vice-versa." Same goes for books.

[tater]

Interesting. I didn't know he had signed a deal at the same time. A friend lent it to me, and I read it the next night. I liked it, it was a quick, easy book, like watching a short TV show---pulp SF, basically. At the time (not knowing it would be a movie) I told him that this would be an easy book to pitch as a movie, as it's compact and straightforward to film.

Regarding bad books, it varies a lot. I've read thousands of books. I have a pretty decent library in my house (I never get rid of books). I have friends that love The Silmarillion, for example. I can't stand it. My wife reads everything Pinchon writes, and I did not like Gravity's Rainbow at all, and haven't bothered with his others yet. A couple buddies of mine loved Anathem, I found it incredibly tedious.

Edited September 10, 2015 by tater

[SpaceXray]

My usual description of 2001 is that it's a "great" SF movie, but it's not a good SF movie. Meaning it is important in many aspects, but not very well done overall.

"For Hollywood standards" is an incredibly low bar. In interstellar, the space travel was all absurd, and no more accurate than Star Wars (tiny SSTOs). The general relativity nonsense was driven by a desire to avoid dilation effects... but they were passing through an event horizon, twice, so any other dilation effects aren't even noise. That's aside from wasting time going to a planet that would not possibly be habitable due to radiation (water planet). But love alters spacetime, so it's got that accuracy going for it?

The Martian was written as a script I think. It was made to be a movie from the start (good business plan by the writer).

I'm sorry, but you are hyperbolizing what you are saying DRASTICALLY by comparing Interstellar's physics to that of Star Wars.

Have you ever seen Star Wars ships dock realistically, have an RCS system, not-turn like fighter jets?

What is unique about Interstellar is the amount of research they did, especially in the field of relativity and warped space time.

Apparently you never read into it, and are basing your judgements of it's accuracy on your own biased assumptions.

Either you are too narrow minded, or you simply didn't pay any attention to the movie whatsoever.

For Hollywood, it set a very high bar, because apparently you've never seen any other Hollywood space movie attempt. There will always be the good trio- Gravity, Interstellar and The Martian.

Anyway, apparently Apple is advertising THe Martian and space now too.

~

[sp1989]

This is a great great great new clip from the movie!!

http://news.moviefone.com/2015/09/10/kristen-wiig-donald-glover-the-martian-clip/

[RainDreamer]

This is a great great great new clip from the movie!!

http://news.moviefone.com/2015/09/10/kristen-wiig-donald-glover-the-martian-clip/

It is funny how that article says they are using big words, but it sounds like just another week day on this forum. Also, SPOILER!

..kinda. If you haven't read the book, that is a very spoilerrific scene.