Poll: The Martian vs. Gravity vs. Interstellar

[K12]

So with the Oscar nominations announced and the Martian getting 7 nominations including best picture (which I was delighted with... though a best director nomination would have been nice) I was wondering which of the modern nominally hard sci-fi space dramas people like the most.

My personal fave is "The Martian". I love the lighter tone and the joy that the story takes in the power of science as a problem solver. It had varied and interesting characters who all felt like real people, with good acting across the board and a personal best from Matt Damon. His character's determined and cocky positivity in the face of disaster was very refreshing and made the times when that shell cracked slightly all the more impactful. The film didn't wallow in gloom and whinging or have characters acting like pricks for the sake of forced drama. It was always about the task at hand and the way that Earth's elite scientists combat bad luck in extreme situations. I loved every second of it.

"Interstellar" annoyed me a lot because it was a few flaws away from being a real masterpiece. Unfortunately those flaws were pretty major and kind of coloured the entire experience for me. Namely the "love can go back in time" bullshit and the dialogue bloated with clumsy overexplanation. I feel it tried to have it both ways, trying to be sentimental and mystical whilst also trying to be based in real science. "2001: A Space Oddysey" managed to straddle this line but for me "Interstellar" tripped over it. It was ambitious and had some really fantastic moments but as a whole it disappointed me.

"Gravity" I enjoyed at the time but when it comes to me writing about it here I can barely remember anything substantial about it... so I think that tells me everything I need to know already. It looked great, it was very well put together and exciting but without much engagement in terms of plot, character or writing that would warrant multiple viewings.

The Oscar's preferred order seems to be: "Gravity" first followed by "The Martian" then "Interstellar" but by imdb score it's the other way round so... what does the escapist think?

 

[Kolby Jack]

Well, the Martian was hard science, with only one real plot hole (the storm) that was necessary to actually have... the plot. The rest was pretty much as accurate as could be expected. It was also fairly light, with good humor, but still had heavy stakes and great acting.

Gravity was well-acted but the science was pretty crap.

Interstellar was mediocre all-around, and the science was magic.

So, yeah. I pick the Martian.

 

[Zontar]

I have to go with The Martian. I like Matt Damon in general, and it was miles better then Interstellar which had a plot that made no sense at all from start to finish, compared to The Martian where the most unrealistic thing about it is the fact that NASA was well funded and cooperated with China's space agency. Now admittedly that's as big of a brake from reality as the physics of Interstellar, but at least one can more easily pretend it could happen even if we know it's impossible.

 

[Zontar]

Well, the Martian was hard science, with only one real plot hole (the storm) that was necessary to actually have... the plot.

There where three plot holes actually:

The storm that is stronger then what Mars' weather could possibly allow for.

NASA being funded the way it was (let's be honest about that).

NASA being permitted to cooperate with China's space agency.

 

[Redd the Sock]

I never saw gravity. The Martian was highly enjoyable, but I think it was held back by one major flaw (not in the hard science): I never once doubted Watney would survive. That's the kind of thing needed for this kind of movie, and while it was fun to watch the cocky bastard, the endless Macguyvering of solutions to problems, climaxing on stripping downa space ship with ABBA playing, it really took the edge off.

Intersteller, oh man, I really want to like that movie, and for 90% I do. While fatalism isn't fun to watch, I don't think there's a true appriciation of science without some acknowledgement that 2+2 won't equal 5 no matter how much you need it to, and hence, good solutions, or solutions at all to any problem. I liked the smack in the face the movie tried to give us that, no, technology won't evolve to the point where things like climate change, world hunger, or anything else can be solved without some cost the will be hard to live with. And then the movie went and bullshit a happy ending by the power of science. At least the Martian was consistent.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

The thing about The Martian is that it's very convenient. It's a movie with no conflict. Yes, Watney's stranded in a faraway planet, but he has everything he needs to survive and you never feel like he's out of his element. He's an astronaut facing astronaut problems. He's a botanist facing botanical problems. Not once does he step out of his comfort zone, nor does the conflict escalate (except once, about an hour into the movie). Compare to Tom Hanks in Castaway - a bureaucrat in a deserted island. That's conflict.

As a comedy, I also thought it was a little too lukewarm, and that it would've benefitted from going all the way in one direction. Make it more absurd, more ridiculous. Or do something outrageously nuanced, in the vein of Wes Anderson.

As a tale of "survival in space", I think Gravity is the better movie, because it's about character and how that character reacts and changes in the face of escalating conflict. I never doubted Watney's survival, but I was on the edge of my seat thinking Sandra Bullock wouldn't make it. And I don't even like Sandra Bullock!

Interstellar: not sure why you're comparing it to the other two. It's a space movie I guess, and Matt Damon's in it. But it's a completely difference beat altogether. Let's say I liked it better than Gravity, because it convided me with a greater sense of pathos; though I think it's not as neatly clockwork a movie as Gravity. And Chris Nolan should knock off the Ken Levine act once and for all.

 

[kurokotetsu]

Gravity was well-acted but the science was pretty crap.

I will take "Buzz" aldrin's word over yours if you don't mind.. [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gravity-review-by-astronaut-buzz-639883] As in he said the representation of zero gravity and space travel is quite accurate (even if Mr. Tyson did find some mistakes, it seems in general it is very good science [http://www.slashfilm.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-fact-checks-gravity-buzz-aldrin-praises-films-realism/]) and I will tend to beleive the science as good form a renowed scientist and astronaut. But that is just me.

In general... I don't know. I don't go to many movies, so out of the three I've jsut seen Gravity. And really liked it.

 

[Zontar]

I mean for all the talk of Mary Stu's, how has The Martian been overlooked.

Probably because there's a difference between a starving orphan who can't salvage enough to trade for a full day's worth of food being perfect at everything regarding using magic and fighting on a level where trained-from-birth professionals are outdone by a novice, and a man who can get through the rigorous proses of selection for the first manned mission to Mars being incredibly intelligent. It's actually a rare case where being anything else would actually be unrealistic. One thing to keep in mind is, in the case of the US at least, astronauts who get through the screening proses are people who got averages that are in the 90s when getting their degrees. A manned mission to Mars would be pretty much the best example of what humanity has to offer in terms of intellect combined with a likely physical build to actually survive well through the long term period in low gravity.

 

[skywolfblue]

Interstellar would be my nomination.

Sure it has major flaws. Mainly Murph being a helpless girl with daddy issues.

I'm a huge sucker for the soundtrack. Interstellar is the first movie in a long while to really rile up an emotional response from me.

I like the black hole, seeing a physically accurate representation of a black hole is awesome, especially how stars bend around the event horizon. B-e-a-utiful!

I love the themes, they could have been done better, the need for human endeavor and the power of love are things worth fighting for.

I liked the Martian, but I didn't quite feel as moved by it as I do for some scenes in Interstellar.
I liked Gravity, but I honestly remember nothing about it except the re-entry scene.

The thing is, even the commander has character flaws. The super intelligent people working at NASA have character flaws.

Watney? Uh.. He's got uhm..

I don't think he's really a Mary Sue.

He may not have many character flaws...

But the other characters don't bow down and worship him. They're not mounting a rescue mission because he's just "That damn special", they're mounting a rescue mission because "Science!".

And things don't work perfectly for him because he's just awesome (As per Rey from Star Wars 7). Things go wrong all over the place. He makes a number of mistakes.

 

[WolfThomas]

But the other characters don't bow down and worship him. They're not mounting a rescue mission because he's just "That damn special", they're mounting a rescue mission because "Science!"

This. One thing that isn't exactly explained in the book (I haven't seen the film) is why it's also beneficial to rescue him. People complain about the cost of rescuing Watney (e.g. "why don't they just leave them" and "couldn't the money save people on earth").

But NASA in rescuing him is learning a lot for future missions. They'll have someone who has survived 1 and 1/2 years on another planet. This is great information for longer missions. They have his first hand experience in fixing problems and surviving in difficult situations.

Another thing is much of the money used to save him is already tied up in NASA assests (like the probe), it's not like they have the loose money lying around.

Probably because there's a difference between a starving orphan who can't salvage enough to trade for a full day's worth of food being perfect at everything regarding using magic and fighting on a level where trained-from-birth professionals are outdone by a novice, and a man who can get through the rigorous proses of selection for the first manned mission to Mars being incredibly intelligent. It's actually a rare case where being anything else would actually be unrealistic. One thing to keep in mind is, in the case of the US at least, astronauts who get through the screening proses are people who got averages that are in the 90s when getting their degrees. A manned mission to Mars would be pretty much the best example of what humanity has to offer in terms of intellect combined with a likely physical build to actually survive well through the long term period in low gravity.

This can't all astronauts be accused of being Mary-Sues, they are literally some the best human beings in existence. They're intelligent, physically fit and have any negative personality traits screened out.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Why do people act like the science needs to matter in these kinds of movies? I'll never understand that mentality. It's a movie, not a seminar. I actually enjoy picking out plotholes in movies because for whatever reason, I find it fun. However, I don't pretend that it should actually be used as a metric to measure the quality of the film. There's making sure everything perfectly adds up, and then there's going for the best dramatic effect. IMO, the two are often mutually exclusive.

Anyway, I haven't seen the Martian yet, but between Gravity and Interstellar, I'd probably take Interstellar because the ideas and concepts it throws around were a lot more emotionally affecting to me than simply trying to escape orbit. That's not to say I didn't thoroughly enjoy Gravity, but I did find that the film loses a lot of what makes it special once you see it outside of theatres, whereas, for me, the same wasn't true for Interstellar.
Edit:

I don't think he's really a Mary Sue.

He may not have many character flaws...

But the other characters don't bow down and worship him. They're not mounting a rescue mission because he's just "That damn special", they're mounting a rescue mission because "Science!".

And things don't work perfectly for him because he's just awesome (As per Rey from Star Wars 7). Things go wrong all over the place. He makes a number of mistakes.

Well the other characters do point out that he's basically the funniest guy at NASA, and there's that part where he's better than an entire team of botanists that work at NASA. A team. I mean he's actually bettter than a team of some of the smartest people in the world who have the same degree as him.

Also off the top of my head I can't think of any real mistakes he makes. He forgets to account for the oxygen in the first chemisty experiment he does, despite being a botanist and mechanical engineer, but then immediately fixes it. And uh, that's about it. Any other problems he faces come from things outside of his control.

I mean as far as Mary Sue's go he plays it completely straight. He's literally The Perfect Man.

Neither of you are correctly using the term Mary Sue. A Mary Sue is an author insert in a fanfiction. Basically, the author writes themselves into the universe and is universally loved by all of their favourite characters. What the two of you are describing is just a boring character who is hard to relate to due to them having very few flaws.

With the Martian, well, I haven't seen the movie but astronauts are generally the best of humanity so I'd be okay with that, especially if him having interesting flaws isn't necessary to the story (which, judging from the general consensus on the movie, they aren't). As for Rey in Star Wars, I don't see how anyone can say she doesn't have flaws. She spends a great deal of the movie actively running from her future and being too scared to confront her destiny. Sure, that's kind of a generic flaw for a main character, but it is kind of a big one. I think people just look past her flaws because she's both confident and competent to very high degrees.

 

[Hawki]

Without a doubt, Gravity. The visuals, the storytelling, the themes, the music, the emotions...I saw this film at IMAX, and I thought/said to those I was with that what I had seen was an experience. Honestly it's probably one of the best sci-fi films I've ever seen. It hasn't knocked Blade Runner from the top spot (in case you're wondering, Star Wars is space fantasy, not sci-fi), but holy hell is it up there.

Maybe I'll try and do a top ten list for sci-fi films. Anyway, moving on:

-The Martian: I read the book before seeing the film. Personally, I consider the book to be the superior version, as in, it's "good," rather than "okay." As for the film, it isn't bad, and it lacks the misteps of Interstellar (more on that later), but I didn't feel it excelled in any particular area. What sends The Martian down a peg from me is the humour. No, not the presence of humour itself - the book has plenty of humour - but rather how it was used. Often the movie felt like it was putting itself on hold for humour, such as Watney's disco track stuff, or the soundtrack for the Hermes's ship back to Mars. The ending sequence also felt lacklustre for me, and the whole "Iron Man" thing was the clincher. Why is Iron Man being referenced? Did you just HAVE to get in one more jibe? Can't I watch a film without being reminded that Marvel is a thing? Heck, I LIKE Iron Man, but...argh. Also had deja vu with Mission to Mars, which is a film I actually enjoyed, though I'm probably in the minority there.

And then there's Interstellar. A.k.a. "what the hell did I just watch?" I really don't have it in me to run down everything wrong with this film (because I've already done it), but God damn this film is a mess. The plot is nonsensical and falls apart under scrutiny. The sound (music and effects) is horrible and prevents us from hearing what the characters are saying half the time. The visuals are nice, but it so rarely gives itself time to breathe there's hardly ever any time to appreciate them. And while it has themes (love, exploration), they're botched so bad that the film ends up suffering from thematic dissonance. I think the best way I can sum it up as to why I prefer Gravity is that Gravity's themes (rebirth, survival) are conveyed visually - Stone floating in the airlock, Stone swimming from the capsule, Stone clawing at the mud. In Interstellar, we have one platitude after another, such as:

-"We used to be explorers, but now we just sit in the dirt."

-"Mankind was born on Earth. It was never meant to die here."

-Stuff about love that seems to be schizophrenic as to whether it's seriously suggesting that love is a quantifiable force or not. Just go for one idea or the other, or leave the theme as subtext.

So yes. Interstellar is a mess. Judging from the poll I'm likely again in a minority, but Nolan...no. Just no. You can convey themes, ideas, and characterization through means other than dialogue.

 

[Casual Shinji]

They all kind of suck.

The Martian is an enlistment video for NASA, telling us that everyone who has anything to do with space exploration is super awesome, and how space colonisation will bring the world together in peace and harmony just cuz. I almost expected them to all hold hands together in the end and dance in a circle. It romaticizes space in the most revolting way.

Gravity is like a big idiot with fancy toys. Everything about it, except for the way zero gravity is displayed (mostly), is dumb.

And Interstellar is just... boring. I honestly can't remember much about it. Whether it made sense or not took second place under Nolan's patented bland expository dialoge that was clogging up my brain.

I guess I have to give it to Gravity, as it is at least exciting to an extent.

 

[the.chad]

My pick would be Interstellar for the same reasons many others have already said.

Not to say I didn't enjoy the other two films, I personally rate them very highly.

But the storyline and emotional journeys in Interstellar struck a big chord with me which is why I find it more memorable than the others.

 

[Fox12]

Interstellar, for sure. The ending was pretty wonky, but the rest of the film was great. It was really nihilistic and frank about humanities place in the universe, which is to say that it's incredibly fragile. There's a real sense of desperation and panic as it explores what people are willing to do to survive. Despite this, there was still a sense of faint hope and optimism throughout the story. The idea that human intellect and courage just might pull us through when our backs are to the wall. It managed to be somewhat optimistic without lying to us. Ignoring the science, though, I thought the characters and plot were really, really good. There was more character complexity then I expected, and for once I actually cared about the characters in a Christopher Nolan movie.

The Martian was like watching an add for the boyscouts. I expected everyone to jump in the air and highfive each other at the end. The film really had to bend over backwards to explain how a person could survive on Mars for so long. Matt Damon's character was way to flawless for my liking. Handsome, strong, smart, funny, sarcastic. No character flaws whatsoever. I get that the film was saying that humanity can achieve anything if we set our minds to it, but... ugh. Optimistic space films are fine, but this is ridiculous. It was a really mediocre film. The acting was bland, the directing was bland, the writing was bland. It was kind of weird coming from Ridley Scott, the guy who made Alien, possibly the bleakest Sci-fi movie of all time. In the end, it was just a recruitment add for getting Nasa some decent funding.

If The Martian was mediocre, then Gravity verged on bad. Why was a medical doctor fixing a space engine? It failed as a story, and it failed at science.

I mean for all the talk of Mary Stu's, how has The Martian been overlooked.

Probably because there's a difference between a starving orphan who can't salvage enough to trade for a full day's worth of food being perfect at everything regarding using magic and fighting on a level where trained-from-birth professionals are outdone by a novice, and a man who can get through the rigorous proses of selection for the first manned mission to Mars being incredibly intelligent. It's actually a rare case where being anything else would actually be unrealistic. One thing to keep in mind is, in the case of the US at least, astronauts who get through the screening proses are people who got averages that are in the 90s when getting their degrees. A manned mission to Mars would be pretty much the best example of what humanity has to offer in terms of intellect combined with a likely physical build to actually survive well through the long term period in low gravity.

Sure, but there's a strong difference between being capable and being perfect. It's not just that he could scrape out a living, it's that he's suave and debonair while doing it. He has not character flaws. He was just a posterboy for nasa. Besides, he would have to have mastered multiple unrelated fields in order to survive the way he did. I would have a hard time believing a team of diverse experts could pull that off. But Matt Damon?

 

[Evonisia]

I admit to haven not seen Interstellar. Apparently it's good but then shits the bed towards the end.

Between the other two: Gravity is a big, dumb, intense film that kept me gripped until near the end where it started getting loopy. I think Bullock's character could have found the courage to keep going off of literally anything else and it wouldn't have been that silly. The Martian managed to keep me engaged despite being painfully aware that the stakes are basically non-existent, and honestly few films last year got me as invested in its characters again, despite the characters never really facing convincing hardship.

So I guess I prefer the Martian, though Gravity is a lot more fun.

 

[fenrizz]

I loved all 3 movies, but I'd pick Interstellar over the others if I had to.
A lot of people in this thread have pointed out several flaws in these moveis, but I don't feel like that takes away from the experience.
Also, I must add that The Martian (book) is a lot better than the movie, and I doubt that I'd enjoy the move as much if I hadn't read the book beforehand.

But the other characters don't bow down and worship him. They're not mounting a rescue mission because he's just "That damn special", they're mounting a rescue mission because "Science!"

This. One thing that isn't exactly explained in the book (I haven't seen the film) is why it's also beneficial to rescue him. People complain about the cost of rescuing Watney (e.g. "why don't they just leave them" and "couldn't the money save people on earth").

But NASA in rescuing him is learning a lot for future missions. They'll have someone who has survived 1 and 1/2 years on another planet. This is great information for longer missions. They have his first hand experience in fixing problems and surviving in difficult situations.

Another thing is much of the money used to save him is already tied up in NASA assests (like the probe), it's not like they have the loose money lying around.

I never once doubted that the US would pour that kind of money on a rescue mission, hell, I would have excpeted them to use a lot more if neseccary.