"Ad astra", lunar thriller

[tater]

16 minutes ago, TheSaint said:

Wow. Just, wow.

If a movie is not even going to try to realistically portray physics and space travel (Star Wars, Star Trek, etc.), that's fine. But when a movie tries to bill itself as realistic, and then gets things this wrong, it drives me crazy. Because now there are people out there walking around thinking that this is how things actually work. Good science fiction should educate you. That's not possible if the science is fundamentally wrong.

This.

Also, and I think I said this above, and in other movie threads where I complain about the science, getting it right is not at the expense of the story. Fiction is primarily about PEOPLE. There is no near future SF plot I can imagine where doing it right somehow hurts the stuff about the story that actually matter, in fact the opposite.

The Martian could have been written to change the plot device that strands him to one that is actually possible (I posted one ages ago). Interstellar had loads of issues, but they could have not used a huge SLS-like rocket to launch their SSTO lander thing, they could have entirely dumped the black hole (looked cool, but it broke more than it fixed in multiple ways). Apollo 13 could have done the countdown right. It's like The Expanse. I tried to watch it, didn't get super interested. Everyone told me to give it another try, so I did. I picked that episode where the guy did some kooky maneuvers near Jupiter. It was so stupid I turned it off right then, and never watched it again.

[kerbiloid]

If Ad Astra treats planets as a sequence of close subway stations, the same does Gravity with orbital stations.

So, they aren't not realistic. Probably, Ad Astra, Gravity, Interstellar, mostly Martian take place in a special space universe like DC and Marvel's. Does anybody say that Marvel physics is not realistic?

[Klapaucius]

Just saw this. Loved the first 5 minutes. As for the rest....

 

Yikes!

 

Just for kicks I did the math. So, he got to Neptune from Mars in 72 days.  Assuming I did not make a stupid math mistake, if he went directly as the crow (metaphorically) flies with no gravity assists or anything, he would need to average 1,536,620 miles per hour.  I guess we get some seriously burly and efficient engines in the near future.

 

It's not just about the physics though. Plotwise, there is just not much there. The strongest bit is actually the social milieu that he created. This is an oppressive future, but they did not exploit that enough.

 

I'll take District 9 anyday.  Pure fiction, but with biting social commentary, which may even be more relevant today than it was when the film was made.

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

Just for kicks I did the math. So, he got to Neptune from Mars in 72 days.  Assuming I did not make a stupid math mistake, if he went directly as the crow (metaphorically) flies with no gravity assists or anything, he would need to average 1,536,620 miles per hour.  I guess we get some seriously burly and efficient engines in the near future.

"Tariff plan Neptune. Speed up to 10, get 100 for free."
Also he has a platinum star for roaming.

[Motokid600]

23 hours ago, tater said:

. It's like The Expanse. I tried to watch it, didn't get super interested. Everyone told me to give it another try, so I did. I picked that episode where the guy did some kooky maneuvers near Jupiter. It was so stupid I turned it off right then, and never watched it again.

You may want to pick another episode. IIRC the director stated that was done for story telling purposes. If anything trying to get realism correct its The Expanse. And it does it with a fantastic story. To each their own obviously, but i wouldn't write the show off based on that one scene. Because it does get alot right and goes above and beyond what any other form of media does to replicate space travel.

[Superfluous J]

16 minutes ago, Motokid600 said:

If anything trying to get realism correct its The Expanse. And it does it with a fantastic story.

Funny you say that, because I watched (I think) the entire first season even though the story bored me to a ridiculous degree, and now a couple years later I can't bear to go through it again nor can I continue on to season 2 because I found it not only boring but easily forgotten.

The only thing I remember is Randy Random from Rimworld is a cop on Ceres and there were some people on a spaceship that got captured by some other people on another spaceship.

[kerbiloid]

Having a watch right after watching The Preacher.
It's very strange to see Tulip onboard a space station and every second wait for when she takes a gun and the grotesque bloodbath begins.

Upd. (spoiler)

Spoiler

The Elvish magic saved him.
That he isn't married to Arwen Undomiel for no reason.

Upd 2.
Also what's unclear in antimatter emission from Neptune?
Obviously, it's some forum user is testing an antimatter SSTO with pusher plate

Edited September 25, 2019 by kerbiloid

[tater]

18 hours ago, Motokid600 said:

You may want to pick another episode. IIRC the director stated that was done for story telling purposes. If anything trying to get realism correct its The Expanse. And it does it with a fantastic story. To each their own obviously, but i wouldn't write the show off based on that one scene. Because it does get alot right and goes above and beyond what any other form of media does to replicate space travel.

Many have said this to me, but if the director was willing to do that for "storytelling" he'd do anything.

Also, like I said, I tried to watch it for a while before, it seemed to me like it was headed towards being zombies in space, or was I wrong (infected, whatever)?

[kerbiloid]

More like extraterrestrial nanobot invasion and a space battle between Martians and Earthians. No real zombies.

Edited September 25, 2019 by kerbiloid

[tater]

3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

More like extraterrestrial nanobot invasion and a space battle between Martians and Earthians. No real zombies.

So the sorta "infected" people are infested with nanorobots?

Which is different only slightly from having a virus, I suppose...

[kerbiloid]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

So the sorta "infected" people are infested with nanorobots?

Yes, they call the nanobots "protomolecule", as they don't know the real nature of the pathogen. Though, maybe they are indeed a molecule.
First it studies humans, later it starts constructing objects from available materials.

In fact, this is not an invasion in sense of agression, it's just a merciless form of forced contact.

Also, the spaceships part of Expanse is almost another story where the protomolecule is just a story driver.

Edited September 25, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Aghanim]

I was disappointed with this film. Expected fun near future scifi like Gravity, Interstellar or The Martian but got a movie with too much talking and no action, especially since The Verge claims that it look like those 3. The ship crew are incompetent, and other characters just died randomly.

 

 

 

[Zero266]

soooo mad max on the moon?

[kerbiloid]

Without the Doof Wagon.
Because there is no sound in vacuum.

Spoiler

 

[lajoswinkler]

OK I watched it and I can just snort and sigh derisively towards people who got their nipples twisted about it.

It's, again, a problem of folks who come to watch a film expecting one thing, and then they squeal like babies when they get another thing. It's like hearing people complain about "First man", saying: "Boo hoo, I expected a space movie!".

I suppose they'd get the same reaction with Soviet SF classics like Tarkovsky's "Solaris" because "the rocket is wrong" or some other stupid complaint like that.

The film is an SF drama. It deals with parental bonds and final coping with loss. What struck me is how very little annoying cliches it has and how calm it is. It truly lifts itself above the mediocre of Hollywood because it's so oddly calming in the way it guides us through what's happening. Not much is happening in general; there isn't some intense, larger/louder/brighter than ever thing, no DUN DUN DUUUUUN reveal.

It doesn't try to please the audience numbed with fast camera, loud noises, excessive emotions or mindnumbing blather. It has a zen quality to it and doesn't make you mentally tired from trying to follow the plot. It just is and it manages to do it in a visually appealing way.

There are some things in the facts department that could've/should've been better without much expense, but they are not sticking out like a sore thumb. Also, there are things that producers seem to be picking up after "Gravity", namely in the sound effects, which is a very important, immersive thing.

I recommend this wholeheartedly. Watch it in a cinema if you can.

[tater]

47 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

It's, again, a problem of folks who come to watch a film expecting one thing, and then they squeal like babies when they get another thing. It's like hearing people complain about "First man", saying: "Boo hoo, I expected a space movie!".

From the Washington Post:

Quote

On Sept. 16, Brad Pitt sat down with The Washington Post Live to discuss his new film, Ad Astra. He was joined by writer and director James Gray, as well as NASA officials, Dr. Sarah Noble and Lindsay Aitchison.

Ad Astra is a science fiction, adventure film that was created with the intention of presenting “the most realistic depiction of space travel that’s been put in a movie” to date. The filmmakers worked with experts to fully capture and convey the dynamism and power of the astronaut experience in outer space.

The above quote describes my expectations regarding realism. Had they (the star and the writer/director!) said it wasn't trying for realism, they were just telling a story, I'd cut it more slack. I'm still not remotely interested in seeing it, and I certainly won't pay to see it, that would just encourage them. Expecting extreme realism is literally what the writer told us to do.

Edited October 10, 2019 by tater

[lajoswinkler]

11 hours ago, tater said:

From the Washington Post:

The above quote describes my expectations regarding realism. Had they (the star and the writer/director!) said it wasn't trying for realism, they were just telling a story, I'd cut it more slack. I'm still not remotely interested in seeing it, and I certainly won't pay to see it, that would just encourage them. Expecting extreme realism is literally what the writer told us to do.

So what you're saying is that you fell for an capitalist entertainment advertisement and you're angry because you got tricked? If I were you, I'd be angry at myself for being so naive but that's just me.

[kerbiloid]

Grimaces of bourgeois world of profit.

[tater]

57 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

So what you're saying is that you fell for an capitalist entertainment advertisement and you're angry because you got tricked? If I were you, I'd be angry at myself for being so naive but that's just me.

This is the director supposedly answering questions about the movie. He could have said he real focus was on the story, but they tried to get a sort of feel, etc. I'm not angry at all. I use information to decide if I want to see a movie or not. I listen to what filmmakers say about their films as part of that decision. If they say it's historically accurate, or realistic, then I read a review by a historian, or astrophysicist that disagrees strongly with the director's comment, then I know they just don't care, and I'm less likely to see it---both because the expert says it's not accurate (which would be a peeve of mine in a near future movie), and because if the director thinks it was good in that regard, they probably messed up other aspects (like plot) that matter as well.

I've read reviews by people who are likely in my camp, it's so painfully wrong about many aspects of space travel that anyone here would find it hard to not notice, and from what I've read it's filled with stuff that would utterly derail me from following or caring about the characters (because I'd be off in the weeds wondering why they showed a science aspect wrong when it did nothing to further the plot, and in fact doing it right would have been better, not worse for the story). Anyone who wants to see it can see it. Anyone who won't be distracted by stuff that makes them leave the story because it's jarring... by all means, go see it. I'm just not one of those people.

 

PS--the "angry" thing is funny, I'm not sure why you would possibly think that. If I invested a few hundred grand in the movie because it was supposed to be accurate, or a faithful adaptation of a book I liked, or something like that, then it turned out to suck because the producer I gave that money to lied... then I'd be angry. This is like me not wanting to buy shirt that doesn't come in a color I want. Won't buy it, but who cares?

 

[G'th]

I greatly enjoyed that it actually showcased Neptune as a major setting. Uranus and Neptune always get the short end of the stick compared to Jupiter or Saturn.