The movie is out, the book has been out for years. If you read the book you know the story. Don't read the thread anymore if you don't want spoilers. Sorry, but spoilers for a 2 year old story that is your fault. After this post no more spoiler tags. They are cumbersome and unlike other new movies, this book is out and well known. Spoiler Yes, he totally got screwed. He was the EVA specialist. He was the guy who rescued The Martian from the MAV in the book. It was dumb, the commander would have been busy with other more important responsibilities and not as good as someone who spent tons of time practicing EVA. Spoiler If by new information you mean the 1970's where the viking lander confirmed what we new for decades even before that I guess. In the book it was fictionalized to make it more dramatic than the trope of the ship broke. Spoiler The movie changed it from Sol 6 to Sol 16 for some reason. It was Sol 6 in the book to make it believable that reducing food supplies for 6 astronauts for 31 days could keep 1 guy alive for 400 days. Where did you get Sol 28?
Would make for an interesting thread. Blade Runner and No Country for Old Men come to mind for at least matched.
Depends on the criteria. Ex Machina vs The Martian purely graded on which is the better movie, Ex Machina wins hands down. It is a better movie. The Martian gets points if you take into account a variant of the events in the movie are possible. We could go to Mars in 10 years if we wanted. We could have a Rover and a HAB on the surface. We would not have a ship bigger than ISS getting us there like the movie but we could get there. It is a Halloween vs Nightmare on Elm Street scenario (although reversed because Halloween is the better movie). Halloween was just a big guy with a knife killing baby sitters. That could happen and to me is therefore scarier.
Spoiler I didn't quite understand the point of Sebastian Stan's character, either. He served no purpose in the movie. James L. Green, the NASA director who consulted on the movie, said it was a recent discovery since the book was written.
Well he is full of crap, or misquoting as saying recent discoveries disprove the novel. Not only did Weir specifically state it was a choice he made to make the movie more about man vs nature, the Viking missions are public record. His alternative story was the MAV engine exploding, leaking fuel and they all had to take off immediately or never. He went with the scientifically impossible storm.
I'd say Gravity and Martian are both equally incredible but for different reasons. But then I really dug the intensity and suspense of the former. The Martian is just a flat out well-executed movie; strong cast, intelligent and compelling story, beautiful set designs. I think I definitely will have to check out the book now.
It's possible that he was misquoted. Maybe he gave that answer as one of the inaccuracies rather than a recent discovery. Either way, some liberties will be taken in fiction. I feel this is one that doesn't detract from the overall story.
It is the most BS part of the book. Perhaps the author of the article you linked put it in the wrong context. To say we didn't know how dense the Mars atmosphere was until 20112/Curiosity is asinine. We have known for decades it is 95% CO2, not just the density. The atmosphere is the basis of the Mars Direct plan from the early 90's.
Im so bothered by the fact that venkat kapoor turned into vince kapoor and they casted a black guy for the role. I wouldn't have any issues with it if they changed his last name too. But a black kapoor absolutely ruined it for me. Also NY, London and Beijing will never be dark at the same time. I doubt that many people would gather in Trafalgar square to watch cnn coverage.
Did you catch when they tried to slip in his dad was Hindu when asked if he believes in god? In the book it was a joke because he said he believes in many gods. I agree with you though. Price of doing business with Ridley Scott. He doesn't care if your name is Mindy Park, you will be played by a blonde girl.
So if Ridley Scott were to direct a reboot of Once Upon a Time in China, it would be played by Keanu Reeves.
Saw Interstellar in Austin at Bullock Imax that had 70mm and easily the best movie experience I have had.
I didn't mind this at all and the actor playing the role is one of the better ones out there. Seems like a usual complaint of people reading the book and saying things were different.
Imagine if the character in the book was Park Ji-Sung and they cast the same guy. A black Ji-Sung. This would irritate the crap out of me. I'm all for casting the best actor for the role, but change his last name too if you're going to change his ethnicity. There will never be a black kapoor in the history of this entire world. Edit: Just to get my point across https://www.google.com/search?q=kap...Kiwhv6nyAIVlEqICh0LSAVu&biw=600&bih=960&dpr=2
That isn't what we are saying though. My opinion is the movie is better than the book. Instead of a serial style collection it is an cohesive story with dramatic license. Also, Scott puts massive effort into casting the actors he wants to play the character and getting it right then shooting all the takes. He does this on every movie. I agree, Chiwetel Ejiofor did a great job. All we (or I) am saying is if you change the character to get the best performance, you should actually change the character. It is a minor complaint, doesn't change the movie for me I was just agreeing redefined and the weirdness of leaving in the Hindu joke which fell flat in the theater I was in. I mean, it wasn't even a joke. It was a wasted line of dialogue.
The 13th Warrior was better than the book Eaters of the Dead, which reminds me of Beowulf for some reason.
