# The Martian (Film: 2015)



## Brian G Turner (Jan 2, 2016)

I can't find an existing discussion on this!

The book is fantastic - and by the looks of the film, they're sticking pretty close to the original story:






I am seriously tempted to buy the Blu Ray when it comes out. 

In the meantime, if you've seen it, feel free to discuss it here. Please remember to use the SPOILER TAG where appropriate. 

Discussion of the book can be found here: The Martian, by Andy Weir


----------



## JC Kang (Jan 2, 2016)

I haven't read the book, but I saw the Martian, another movie in a long list where Matt Damon is stranded alone somewhere.   He was an appealing character and you can't help but root for him as he runs into problem after problem, and somehow finds ways to solve them.


----------



## J-Sun (Jan 2, 2016)

I usually read books first and often don't watch the movies at all. For this one, I did pass on getting the book, yet decided to go see the movie. And having done that, I decided I'd have to get the book after all - it was really good. Within the constraints of being a "movie" it was the proverbial "Good Science Fiction Movie" - most things that try to be are boring or otherwise severely flawed and its little wonder the usual SFX blockbusters do so much better but this was serious, partly (not entirely) scientific, and compelling, exciting, and fun all at once.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 4, 2016)

How did anyone who has read the book feel that the film compared? Is it fairly faithful to the original? Or have they made key changes that undermine it, such as the inclusion of Mark pining for his family?


----------



## Droflet (Jan 4, 2016)

Just finished seeing this. Best thing Matt Damon has done in years. His characters wry humor under extreme pressure made him a character to root for. Terrific film.


----------



## Frost Giant (Jan 6, 2016)

I though the end was great - Mark Wahlberg walks up outside the Mars dome and shoots Damon in the forehead just before he can escape, roll credits. Oops, spoiler.


----------



## Droflet (Jan 6, 2016)

Funny, FG.


----------



## Juliana (Jan 6, 2016)

I haven't watched this yet, but recently read the book and I can absolutely imagine Damon in the role. In fact, he's probably a perfect fit.


----------



## Vince W (Jan 7, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> How did anyone who has read the book feel that the film compared? Is it fairly faithful to the original? Or have they made key changes that undermine it, such as the inclusion of Mark pining for his family?



I felt Scott missed a couple of opportunities to really ramp up the tension and drama by glossing and skipping over some of the events in the book. Especially towards the end.


----------



## Cli-Fi (Jan 16, 2016)

I just watched this because I wanted to see why the Oscars thought it was a comedy. I sort of see their reasoning behind it too. Everyone is saying, Matt Damon's humor is the thing that made the movie watchable right? On top of the great supporting cast too! So why not? *Shrugs* I found his character extremely likable but... I think he would have gone mentally insane on that trip! They didn't even show any signs of that. But that's the end of my criticizing.

I was pretty impressed and this film kept my attention throughout all of it. It had good pacing which I feel a lot of these original idea movies don't these days. Whereas in this movie it seemed like every single time something happens it was custom-made for something else to happen that would help the character get home. It probably means the book is a genuine-page turner and could be next on my list to read.

Probably the best Space Mission movie I've seen in years!


----------



## DrMclony (Jan 17, 2016)

I will definitely be buying this when the blue ray comes out. It is a very good movie. 

On a funny note, and a great example of the dodgy nature of pirate copies, I heard of one recently somebody bought with the silly belief it was genuine while on holidays somewhere in Asia, and there are two points on that dodgy DVD when Matt Damon is alone on mars, the only human on the planet. Except for those two film crew members who just walked in front of the lens... I daresay, it would kind of ruin the entire atmosphere of the movie! 

Don't support the pirates, you will never get the same quality product. 

I think buying the official blue ray is a great way of saying to Andy Weir, well done mate!


----------



## cyprus7 (Jan 17, 2016)

Droflet said:


> Funny, FG.


Yes, it was Ziggy!


----------



## Juliana (Jan 18, 2016)

Finally watched this last night.



Vince W said:


> I felt Scott missed a couple of opportunities to really ramp up the tension and drama by glossing and skipping over some of the events in the book. Especially towards the end.



I know. I would have liked them to spend a while longer on the final trip out to the MAV. But all in all, a good movie. I'm really glad I had read the book first, though!


----------



## kythe (Mar 2, 2016)

I finally saw "The Martian" last night, and really enjoyed it.  It was the best sci fi movie I've seen in a long time, especially with the concentration on real science.  I would really like to see a real space flight to Mars.  Theories have been developed for years as to how colonization and terraforming could be done.  I would like to see that become a reality.


----------



## Serendipity (Mar 2, 2016)

kythe said:


> I finally saw "The Martian" last night, and really enjoyed it.  It was the best sci fi movie I've seen in a long time, especially with the concentration on real science.  I would really like to see a real space flight to Mars.  Theories have been developed for years as to how colonization and terraforming could be done.  I would like to see that become a reality.



I still have to find time to watch the film... but thought you might be interested in my (to date) only Mars story to be published (I then put it up on my blog because the magazine was difficult to get hold of). So here's the link to my story... A Fate of Dust ...


----------



## J Riff (Mar 2, 2016)

Ha. ha... growing POTatoes on Mars... hooBoy. Nearly put me to schleep.


----------



## cyprus7 (Mar 3, 2016)

J Riff said:


> Ha. ha... growing POTatoes on Mars... hooBoy. Nearly put me to schleep.


Whiff of a plot germ there... the war on drugs... in space


----------



## J Riff (Mar 3, 2016)

Right... lessee.. the entire planet is a seed, see.. a huge poppy seed, and it explodes, sending spores everywhere and the Galactic Rangers have to clean it up, and keep the spaceways safe for blahblahWoooF!!


----------



## psikeyhackr (Mar 4, 2016)

Yeah, it's a good hard SF movie, which is rare.  But I wasn't about to read the book.  The plot just isn't interesting or complex enough.  The astronaut had to be rescued after heroic travails and ingenuity.  YAWN  OK for a movie, couldn't read it.

psik


----------



## Rodders (Mar 4, 2016)

I enjoyed it, but thought it was a "by the numbers" American movie. I kept hoping that a director such as Ridley Scott would do something to make it a little interesting, but he didn't. It did look good, though.

I was hoping that the Astronaut wouldn't survive and that the rest of the movie would be about how America dealt with the loss.


----------



## SilentRoamer (Mar 4, 2016)

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.


----------



## cyprus7 (Mar 4, 2016)

SilentRoamer said:


> 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!


----------



## the_evil_ted (Mar 6, 2016)

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.


----------



## ratsy (Mar 7, 2016)

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!


----------



## the_evil_ted (Mar 7, 2016)

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.


----------



## Kith (Mar 13, 2016)

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.


----------



## michaelhall2007 (Mar 25, 2016)

*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?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 9, 2016)

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.


----------



## Old_Man_Steve2016 (Apr 9, 2016)

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?"


----------



## Josh Hayes (Apr 10, 2016)

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!


----------



## psikeyhackr (Apr 10, 2016)

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


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor (Apr 10, 2016)

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.


----------



## galanx (Apr 16, 2016)

Haven't seen the movie- as for the book, the science parts were great; anything involving people not so much.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (May 21, 2016)

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.


----------



## psikeyhackr (May 22, 2016)

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


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 2, 2016)

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.


----------



## Vince W (Jun 2, 2016)

The film is quite good, but like any adaptation there are differences. A good effort but not perfect by any means.



Spoiler



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?


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 2, 2016)

Vince W said:


> The film is quite good, but like any adaptation there are differences. A good effort but not perfect by any means.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 3, 2016)

Vertigo said:


> the book also rather dodged the issue of radiation.



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.


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 3, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> 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!!!!!


----------



## cyprus7 (Jun 3, 2016)

Vertigo said:


> 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..."



Yes, he was an entertaining presenter. The Martian wind and the radiation issues. Still, he had the science down well enough that keeping the entertainment value of these two, somewhat distorted, in the book turned out OK. I felt that mainstream readers can enjoy the SF aspect of the story while the science geeks can fantasize about some radiation-resistance mutant/cyborg or material that ends up taking humanity to Mars, one day.


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 3, 2016)

cyprus7 said:


> Yes, he was an entertaining presenter. The Martian wind and the radiation issues. Still, he had the science down well enough that keeping the entertainment value of these two, somewhat distorted, in the book turned out OK. I felt that mainstream readers can enjoy the SF aspect of the story while the science geeks can fantasize about some radiation-resistance mutant/cyborg or material that ends up taking humanity to Mars, one day.


The radiation one I'm prepared to accept - I think it's reasonable to assume we can and will eventually crack that particular problem. It's ridiculous to assume NASA will only send pensioners to Mars because of the radiation risk. Please! As I say reasonable to assume that a solution will be found for that one. Though maybe not quite in his hoped for timescale.

The wind one was a bit naughty and he admitted as much. Which was fine!

I liked the hydrazine mistake that would have raised the temperature of the hab by 400 degrees C. Oops! But had he figured that one himself it would have been pretty easy to come up with a solution Mars is after all, as Watney kept telling us, very cold. Loosing a bit of heat would not have been a show stopper.


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor (Jun 3, 2016)

Listen, if Spock can physically see his planet being eaten by red matter, when he was dropped off on a planet so far away that the Enterprise continued at warp for some period of time after dropping off Chris Pine, then I'd have to say that Weir's science glitches don't even tweak the meter.

At some point you just have to turn off the brain and go with the story.


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 3, 2016)

Ah but that depends on the story; this is very specifically hard SF and, in Weir's own words, it was to be written to be as scientifically accurate as possible. And he has achieved that to an astonishing degree and also hat's off to him that, where he has slipped up a little, he's very open about owning up to it. Also in this case the reality of the hard science is so much a part of the story. An example maybe of reality is sometimes stranger than fiction...


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 8, 2016)

Well I've watched the film now and, no surprise, I much prefer the book. Visually it was great but so many subtle details were left out that I felt if I had not read the book I'd have been asking a lot of questions. For example: 



Spoiler



in the book he clearly explains how he freeze dries the potatoes by simply putting them outside. This is not mentioned in the film and, indeed, after the hab blowout we see all his healthy looking potatoes _inside_ the hab. So what's stopping him from planting some of those? In the book of course that wouldn't work because they were freeze dried. There were many other similar bits that were similarly incomplete and why, oh why, did the film have to thrown in actually doing the Ironman bit at the end, which in the book was treated as little more than a joke?



Visually great but so much was missing it was a much lesser story as a result.


----------



## Silas Wulf (Jul 3, 2016)

The movie is the basically the book, minus some stuff. One of the best book-to-film adaptations I've ever seen.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 3, 2016)

Silas Wulf said:


> The movie is the basically the book, minus some stuff. One of the best book-to-film adaptations I've ever seen.



I agree - and welcome to the chrons forums.


----------



## Silas Wulf (Jul 3, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> I agree - and welcome to the chrons forums.


Thanks!


----------



## Dave (Oct 11, 2016)

I haven't read the book but would recommend this.


Rodders said:


> I enjoyed it, but thought it was a "by the numbers" American movie...
> I was hoping that the Astronaut wouldn't survive and that the rest of the movie would be about how America dealt with the loss.


It did have that annoying habit in modern movies of having just too many final twists. The odds of pulling off the mission were already astonomical, but by the end they were unbelievable.



michaelhall2007 said:


> When I watch this movie I thought "You can't live off potato's for years...


When I was a kid, a TV programme had someone who had only ever eaten baked beans! (It may have been _Blue Peter_.)

However, it can't be very healthy and when he shaved getting ready for Hermes, you could see that his body was covered in sores. I wasn't sure if that was his diet, or the explosion, or the radiation?



Vertigo said:


> Incidentally 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.


Not due to the radiation then?



Vertigo said:


> 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!


I know I'm coming very late to this, but I thought I'd point out that that line is in the film too. No idea why they needed to alter the forename though.


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 12, 2016)

Dave said:


> It did have that annoying habit in modern movies of having just too many final twists. The odds of pulling off the mission were already astonomical, but by the end they were unbelievable.


One of the things that bugged me rather at the end of the film was using his space suit atmosphere as a propellant. This was something he considered in the book but rejected as being completely impractical, which I would agree with, but the film clearly decided a little more tension was required and went ahead and did it. An unnecessary and unrealistic twist that was rejected in the book.


----------



## Chris Before (Oct 12, 2016)

I agree, the number of "final twists" in films often seems excessive. However by the end of The Martian, i was so surprised by the constant ingenuity of Matt Damon's character that i went with the flow and thoroughly enjoyed the film. In contrast i have seen a number of films where there is only one final twist, and now, because of raised expectations, I feel let down, wondering, was that it? Surely they could have done more?


----------



## Justin Swanton (Oct 12, 2016)

I read the book twice and saw the film several times and liked both very much. But one big niggler doesn't go away. John Braine in _On Writing a Novel_ talks about the 'point of improbability' - sooner or later something in a novel won't be plausible for no other reason than a novel, being a story, is not real life. His advice was to disguise it, slip it past, so it doesn't get noticed.

The problem with _The Martian_ is that the point of improbability is a huge elephant right up front and centre - the Martian storm that leaves Watney stranded in the first place. In a book where the fine points of space science are carefully presented and utilised, a storm on Mars that blows away the comm dish and nearly kills Watney is just too hard to swallow - it doesn't fit, in a world where scientific detail is _*meant *_to fit. I would have preferred it if Andy Weir had applied his undeniable ingenuity and found another plot device to leave Andy, suspected dead, on Mars.

For example: There is a marsquake and a crevice opens where the comm dish and Watney happen to be located. Both fall in. Watney's life support monitor is damaged and the crew think he might be dead. As they are organising themselves to rescue him they discover that the marsquake has damaged the MAV's fuel tanks, springing a leak which they don't have time to fix. The MAV must be used immediately to return to the Hermes and even then they will be taking a chance. There is a moment of angst whilst Commander Lewis weighs up staying longer to rescue Watney or leaving whilst they can. She leaves, convinced Mark is dead. And you're away...


----------



## REBerg (Oct 12, 2016)

Justin Swanton said:


> I read the book twice and saw the film several times and liked both very much. But one big niggler doesn't go away. John Braine in _On Writing a Novel_ talks about the 'point of improbability' - sooner or later something in a novel won't be plausible for no other reason than a novel, being a story, is not real life. His advice was to disguise it, slip it past, so it doesn't get noticed.
> 
> The problem with _The Martian_ is that the point of improbability is a huge elephant right up front and centre - the Martian storm that leaves Watney stranded in the first place. In a book where the fine points of space science are carefully presented and utilised, a storm on Mars that blows away the comm dish and nearly kills Watney is just too hard to swallow - it doesn't fit, in a world where scientific detail is _*meant *_to fit. I would have preferred it if Andy Weir had applied his undeniable ingenuity and found another plot device to leave Andy, suspected dead, on Mars.
> 
> For example: There is a marsquake and a crevice opens where the comm dish and Watney happen to be located. Both fall in. Watney's life support monitor is damaged and the crew think he might be dead. As they are organising themselves to rescue him they discover that the marsquake has damaged the MAV's fuel tanks, springing a leak which they don't have time to fix. The MAV must be used immediately to return to the Hermes and even then they will be taking a chance. There is a moment of angst whilst Commander Lewis weighs up staying longer to rescue Watney or leaving whilst they can. She leaves, convinced Mark is dead. And you're away...


I agree. I just recently watched the movie and thought it was remarkable.
The idea of one sandstorm wiping out the whole mission, though, seemed improbable. Surely a multi-billion dollar expedition would be better prepared for Mars surface conditions than that.


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 12, 2016)

Justin Swanton said:


> I read the book twice and saw the film several times and liked both very much. But one big niggler doesn't go away. John Braine in _On Writing a Novel_ talks about the 'point of improbability' - sooner or later something in a novel won't be plausible for no other reason than a novel, being a story, is not real life. His advice was to disguise it, slip it past, so it doesn't get noticed.
> 
> The problem with _The Martian_ is that the point of improbability is a huge elephant right up front and centre - the Martian storm that leaves Watney stranded in the first place. In a book where the fine points of space science are carefully presented and utilised, a storm on Mars that blows away the comm dish and nearly kills Watney is just too hard to swallow - it doesn't fit, in a world where scientific detail is _*meant *_to fit. I would have preferred it if Andy Weir had applied his undeniable ingenuity and found another plot device to leave Andy, suspected dead, on Mars.
> 
> For example: There is a marsquake and a crevice opens where the comm dish and Watney happen to be located. Both fall in. Watney's life support monitor is damaged and the crew think he might be dead. As they are organising themselves to rescue him they discover that the marsquake has damaged the MAV's fuel tanks, springing a leak which they don't have time to fix. The MAV must be used immediately to return to the Hermes and even then they will be taking a chance. There is a moment of angst whilst Commander Lewis weighs up staying longer to rescue Watney or leaving whilst they can. She leaves, convinced Mark is dead. And you're away...





REBerg said:


> I agree. I just recently watched the movie and thought it was remarkable.
> The idea of one sandstorm wiping out the whole mission, though, seemed improbable. Surely a multi-billion dollar expedition would be better prepared for Mars surface conditions than that.


The point is that a Martian expedition wouldn't need to be prepared for anything like that because it couldn't happen. Because of the extremely low atmospheric pressure a 200mph wind would only feel like a breeze. For it to do as much damage as was presented in both the book and the film is pretty much impossible. It's actually doubly naughty since a Mars storm is presented later much more realistically when It takes Watney ages to realise that he is actually in the middle of a big dust storm. Can't remember whether that actually featured in the film or not but it is in the book.

A 'marsquake' wouldn't cut it either as Mars is not tectonically inactive.

Weir said in a presentation that he could have come up with other scenarios but he just couldn't figure one that would be caused by 'nature' and, since the whole book is essentially man versus nature, he really wanted to have nature get the first shot in for dramatic effect.

For myself I'm prepared to live with that one. But, in what is essentially very much hard SF, it was a little naughty!


----------



## Vince W (Oct 12, 2016)

Vertigo said:


> The point is that a Martian expedition wouldn't need to be prepared for anything like that because it couldn't happen. Because of the extremely low atmospheric pressure a 200mph wind would only feel like a breeze. For it to do as much damage as was presented in both the book and the film is pretty much impossible. It's actually doubly naughty since a Mars storm is presented later much more realistically when It takes Watney ages to realise that he is actually in the middle of a big dust storm. Can't remember whether that actually featured in the film or not but it is in the book.
> 
> A 'marsquake' wouldn't cut it either as Mars is not tectonically inactive.
> 
> ...



I don't really consider The Martian to be sf, but rather a science-thriller.

The storm situation always bothered me a little, but I let it go as I enjoyed both the book and the film. I think a rogue meteor shower might have been a better option as a start to the story. They have to get the rocket off planet and out of harm's way or they'd all die. It's another stretch, but equally dramatic.


----------



## REBerg (Oct 12, 2016)

Vince W said:


> The storm situation always bothered me a little, but I let it go as I enjoyed both the book and the film. I think a rogue meteor shower might have been a better option as a start to the story. They have to get the rocket off planet and out of harm's way or they'd all die. It's another stretch, but equally dramatic.


That would work for me. Even smallish meteors would pack a big punch in the thinner Martian atmosphere.
One puts a hole in the MAV fuel tank, starting the takeoff timer. Another, takes Watney and his suit communications out, which forces the rest of the crew to conclude he's dead.
On the other hand, they could have gone with a Sharknado.


----------



## Justin Swanton (Oct 12, 2016)

Vertigo said:


> A 'marsquake' wouldn't cut it either as Mars is not tectonically inactive.



It may still be *active*.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 12, 2016)

Vince W said:


> I don't really consider The Martian to be sf



Talk about being really hard to please.


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 12, 2016)

Justin Swanton said:


> It may still be *active*.


That's interesting, I really didn't know that one. but unfortunately they do go on to say: "Most of the marsquakes, if they do still occur, are likely relatively minor, the sort of thing that wouldn't rattle a shelf or a nerve in San Francisco."


----------



## Justin Swanton (Oct 12, 2016)

Vertigo said:


> That's interesting, I really didn't know that one. but unfortunately they do go on to say: "Most of the marsquakes, if they do still occur, are likely relatively minor, the sort of thing that wouldn't rattle a shelf or a nerve in San Francisco."



But notice that faults on Mars may the kind that "produces large void space in the subsurface," Ferrill told _SPACE.com_. "Over time, the overlying surface material can collapse to create the pit chains." - and down goes Mark and comm dish.


----------



## EJDeBrun (Oct 12, 2016)

This is a hard one. There's a lot of fudged science in both the book and film, but to address some of the previous issues, it's an issue of believability more than probability, since this is essentially fiction. So the question is can you suspend your disbelief long enough to believe in the initial storm? I think Ridley Scott does a better job in the film for this, because he doesn't get into the dust storm and also he has a better climax with Iron Man pose, which heightens the tension. All are consistent with Watney's plight.

The book's problem is that you have this killer storm with winds (and a previous poster noted how can you have crazy storm blow off satellite in low atmospheric conditions) and then have this sloooooooow dust storm. The inconsistencies are hard to get around. From a science perspective, the dust storm is a more realistic scenario, but from a story perspective, the killer wind skewering Watney is the main plot device. Trying to use both is what breaks the believability.

I do think for a reader/viewer, it comes down to how much you know about physic and science and Mars conditions (I had this problem with Gravity. As soon as they broke the science I was out.) Or care. From a creators point of view it's better to be consistent in your fiction, in my opinion.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 5, 2019)

Watched this again and very much enjoyed it - as expected. However, this time around the scene toward the end where they try to slow the _Hermes _with a homemade bomb seemed to drag out the film longer than necessary. While it may have been a feature in the book, the tension had already ramped up enough at the idea of Mark Watney leaving Mars in a rocket covered in tarpaulin, and there was no need to attempt to prolong the tension further in the film version.

It was also interesting to see a couple of actors who have since gone onto bigger roles, not least Chiwetel Ejiofor who partnered up with Doctor Strange, and Donald Glover before he became Lando Calrissian.


----------



## Scookey (Jan 5, 2019)

I thought it was an excellent, well made and acted film. Sure some of the science wasn't perfect but by normal Hollywood standards it was positively documentary. Not read the book yet - got it on my to do list though


----------



## Al Jackson (Jan 6, 2019)

I have watched The Martian at least 4 times , spaced out over 3 years. That is always a good sign that I liked a movie , if I watch it again.
Have a friend who thinks the whole film is ruined by the Mars dust storm , which could not happen, but could not find anything else , fact wise, wrong with the movie. I long ago got to looking at science fiction films , especially good ones, as Alternate Universe stories, so the no matter if the Mars in the Martian is supposed to be Our Mars I think of it as Mars Next Door! That is especially true of Gravity which should have been labeled as an alternate universe story from the get go.
The Martian shows that Ridely Scott is an odd ball! The Martian is sandwiched in between Prometheus and Alien Covenant  both of which are flat footed stupid science fiction. Scott is a contrarian , he actually knows what is good, the did not fiddle with the screenplay written by Drew Goddard, went with the straight forward story. I don't know what gets into him at other times making dumb choices for the dramatic narrative , Scott is a strange director these days.


----------



## picklematrix (Jan 6, 2019)

Ridley Scott has definitely gone downhill in the quality of his output over the years. Gladiator and Alien are two of my favourite films.
Alien Covenant was just a litany of bad decisions, from both the crew and the characters.
He seems to be able to get consistently good performances out of actors at least. The cast of Covenant were fine, it's just the script that made them bereft of common sense. The cast of the Martian all give great performances, and I've never been a massive fan of Matt Damon.


----------



## Al Jackson (Jan 7, 2019)

picklematrix said:


> Ridley Scott has definitely gone downhill in the quality of his output over the years. Gladiator and Alien are two of my favourite films.
> Alien Covenant was just a litany of bad decisions, from both the crew and the characters.
> He seems to be able to get consistently good performances out of actors at least. The cast of Covenant were fine, it's just the script that made them bereft of common sense. The cast of the Martian all give great performances, and I've never been a massive fan of Matt Damon.



Scott has always been a bit odd. He has a superb eye for production design Prometheus and Covenant all look great. His Kingdom of Heaven was an odd historical moment to choose and the studio cut was awful his directors cut was better. His Robin Hood was a why-did-he-do-it-that-way? movie ! He should not have made Exodus: Gods and Kings , I have no idea what got into him.  
Speaking of Alien.  I saw somewhere Scott mention that Cameron's Alien's was not a proper sequel to Alien. Scott said (this is apart from the Alien prequels he is doing) he wanted to make a proper sequel to the original Alien , strange.


----------



## picklematrix (Jan 7, 2019)

Al Jackson said:


> Scott has always been a bit odd. He has a superb eye for production design Prometheus and Covenant all look great. His Kingdom of Heaven was an odd historical moment to choose and the studio cut was awful his directors cut was better. His Robin Hood was a why-did-he-do-it-that-way? movie ! He should not have made Exodus: Gods and Kings , I have no idea what got into him.
> Speaking of Alien.  I saw somewhere Scott mention that Cameron's Alien's was not a proper sequel to Alien. Scott said (this is apart from the Alien prequels he is doing) he wanted to make a proper sequel to the original Alien , strange.


He may have had some good ideas for the Alien franchise at that point, but if you ask me, Cameron did a fantastic job of the sequel, so I heartily disagree with Scott on that one. 
Production design seems to be consistently good in all of his films, even Robin Hood etc, but good visuals honestly just make his baffling story decisions even more glaring. I'd almost prefer a goofier, cheaper look at this point!


----------

