Poll: The Martian vs. Gravity vs. Interstellar

[BloatedGuppy]

Gravity - Really needed the 3D to shine. A better film than Avatar, but still seems curiously inert without the 3D and spectacle of the large screen. Nicely paced, good tension, but ultimately more of a tech demo and series of action set pieces than a story.

The Martian - Strictly inferior to the novel. The compression/removal of events to fit comfortably into standard film running length buggers up the conflict arc, and things seem to get easier and easier for Watney over time instead of rising to a natural climax. The altered ending is campy and something of a misread...this is a story that is first and foremost a love letter to hard science and simple, pragmatic solutions. A fun film, but also an utterly forgettable one. Probably the least impressive Best Picture candidate.

Interstellar - The best of the three by a country mile, although not without its own pacing and comprehension issues. This is in some ways the Bioshock Infinite of films...the science is ultimately in service to the story, and not the other way around. Irritable pedants will use that as an excuse to attack and dismiss, but like Infinite, Interstellar is a Story Worth Telling, with a lot of big ideas and powerful thematic beats. Children of Men, Interstellar, Her, and Ex Machina are the tent pole science fiction films of the last few years. None are exacting in their science, all are hugely ambitious in their storytelling and scope.

QUALITY:

1. Interstellar
2. The Martian
3. Gravity

As for that science...all of these films had science advisors, and you'd probably be surprised to learn just how MUCH of the science is actually perfectly feasible/in line with our best understanding. Gravity was the most silly, the Martian was the most serious-minded (although they kind of blew it up in the film with that preposterous ending).

SCIENCE:

1. The Martian (book)
2. Interstellar/ The Martian (film)
3. Gravity

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

How many astronauts do we see?

6.

Of those six, there's bound to be a "funny guy". Watney happened to be that guy. I still don't see how that's unlikely that he's the funny dude of the 6 astronauts sent to Mars.

As for frying his communication.

Why should that be a mission breaking? He didn't break the rover (which would have been a truly mission critical piece of equipment), and by the time he fries his text-service, he already knows what the plan is, and what modifications to the rover. He has a map, and known geographical features to use as waypoints (no you don't need a smartphone with a GPS to traverse an empty desert).

As for being smarter than NASA. He isn't. At the most NASA is just a bit more hung up on procedures and tests than he is (typical of a government agency. They usually have a zero-error policy which can mean that their work-process is slower because of sometimes needless bureaucracy).

As for him being intelligent. He needs to be that to actually have the chance of going to space. Astronauts aren't rough oil-drillers, or suicidal MD's. Astronauts of today are probably the closest we'd get to actually see a real-life "Mary Sue". If they weren't they wouldn't be qualified for long duration space-travel.

Basically if Mark Watney wasn't "Mary Sue'ish", he wouldn't have gone home. If he had nervous brakedowns (because of characterization), he wouldn't have gone home. If he had made more mistakes, he'd been killed before getting the chance of going home.

The character Mark Watney is the closest, any kind of fictional media have come to a realistic representation of an actual, qualified astronaut.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

If you hold the point of thrust perpendicular to your center of mass, it would propel you in a direction, but both movies do acknowledge that it's a terrible idea that has no right to work (but barely does here because movie).

In a zero-G environment you'd have to be so on the ball on that center of mass that even the slightest deviation would cause you to get caught in a neverending spin cycle.

More accurately, you'd be pushed in a direction and rotated, the severity of which depends on what angle your thrust is compared to your center of mass. Which is why Bullock has to continuously make adjustments. That scene is improbable, not impossible.

The other points are nitpicking NASA's standards (which is fair, but not science) and while talking may consume more oxygen, keeping someone conscious (especially in such a dangerous situation) is more important.

I wouldn't call that nitpicking, it's calling out a movie that's supposed to give us a realistic set-up about astronauts in space, and how one of these astronauts comes across as terribly ill-equipped for doing their job. I mean, if this was like a Christa McAuliffe situation I wouldn't have cared, but this is supposed to an astronaut trained to the point where she's allowed to perform outside repairs.

The unflappable astronaut is a fairly accurate trope, but astronauts are still human. I don't find it that unsettling that a specialist on her first mission freaks out after watching a coworker get a hole through their head.

And I think keeping someone's very, very low oxygen count in check by telling them to not talk unless absolutely necessary, and to control their breathing, is a heck of a lot more important in keeping someone conscious than shooting the breeze to distract them. He could've just said 'Listen to my voice and remain calm', but like a dumb-ass he insist on having her talk, unnecessarily consuming more of what precious little oxygen she has. Had he not kept her talking that whole time she could've had enough oxygen to the point where he could've taken his time in maneuvering them toward the space station with that little bit of propulsion, instead of going for one big thrust, because oh no, she's running out of air, causing them to crash and him to die. What a veteran.

Though I would've forgiven these faults if the movie had an actual engaging plot and characters.

Do keep in mind that you don't really use that much more oxygen to talk. The suits are closed systems, the oxygen that gets breathed out instead of used just goes back into circulation.

 

[Casual Shinji]

That's all well and good, but at a certain point, you have to realize that it's a movie, not a seminar. If these things really distracted you that much while watching, well, that's a failure on the movie's part for not sucking you in well enough so you could suspend your disbelief. I read all you wrote and can't help but think "so what?" None of that stuff actually matters. If you can't push back a collection of tiny nitpicks I'd say that's more on you than the film maker. Not saying that nitpicking isn't fun (my favourite youtube channel is Cinemasins), but I just don't see how it can ruin a movie for someone. My favourite movies are the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I can nitpick the shit of them, but I still love them.

Genuinely curious, what are your favourite movies? I guarantee you could find numerous plotholes and logical inconsistencies in them. Almost no plot is going to be held up to scrutiny because directors simply don't care about the tiny things. They're probably aware of at least 90% of what people will nitpick when they make a movie, but instead of making sure everything lines up perfectly and would work in real life, they go for whatever would have the best dramatic effect. I guess it's a difference of opinion on what you find more important, but I don't see how you could enjoy movies if you value the former over the latter.

That's not to say there isn't a tipping point for when a plot has too many holes that it starts to negatively impact the film in big ways, but I guess my tolerance for that is a lot greater than yours.

Hey man, I like X-Men Days of Future Past, and that movie is freaking Swiss cheese.

My tolerance for plotholes depends on what a movie is specifically going for, and what positives it has to pick up the slack. To take Days of Future Past; That movie is a fucking mess if you look at it objectively, but the performances, the character interaction, the pacing, the action, the visuals, and the way that the movie overall carries itself hooks you in and engages you regardless (me anyway).

Gravity fancies itself a hard sci-fi adventure movie, but at almost every turn it demonstrates it has about as much knowledge of space as Armageddon, which is arguably even a better movie, since it atleast knows what it's going for. Gravity has very little going for it beyond it's visuals, and those visuals themselves aren't even used in an interesting way. And if there's no interesting characters, situations, or plot to distract me from whatever inconsistencies are present, then those inconsistencies are going to draw the bulk of my attention.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Gravity's much much better when you take it for what it is. It wasn't trying to be COMPLETELY accurate. That wasn't the point of the movie. It was realistic just enough to feel visceral and gripping, yet not enough to start restraining the story. Gravity isn't about science. It's about not letting the world and despair get to you. To not panic and keep your head. To never give up and keep moving forward to a better dawn. This quote from it sums the movie up amazingly.

Spoiler

Listen, do you wanna go back, or do you wanna stay here? I get it. It's nice up here. You can just shut down all the systems, turn out all the lights, and just close your eyes and tune out everyone. There's nobody up here that can hurt you. It's safe. I mean, what's the point of going on? What's the point of living? Your kid died. Doesn't get any rougher than that. But still, it's a matter of what you do now. If you decide to go, then you gotta just get on with it. Sit back, enjoy the ride. You gotta plant both your feet on the ground and start livin' life...

Hey, Ryan? It's time to go home.

- Matt Kowalski

 

[K12]

That's all well and good, but at a certain point, you have to realize that it's a movie, not a seminar.

I think that's never really a good response to criticism. The fact that a plothole or scientific/ historical accuracy can be overlooked or justified from an out of universe explanation (i.e. the author needed to get the hero in this place somehow) doesn't mean it isn't still a negative. The Martian has only a small handful of scientific inaccuracies and the main one is right at the start to make sure everything gets nice and fucked in the right kind of way. This is fine narratively speaking, getting into trouble with inaccuracy is much better than getting out of trouble with it. Compared to most sci-fi it's fantastic in it's accuracy and if you know about how it was originally written you know how much Andy Weir cared about getting that stuff right. I fully appreciate the effort and love the film partly because of that effort.

I think there's something fundamentally negative about Science-fiction that gets less and less enjoyable the more you know about science. The same goes for history buffs being put off by historical fiction. They can be overlooked but it seems like you're alienating the very people who should be most interested in what you're creating. It's a balancing act and the ideal will be different for different people.

Also I hate Cinemasins!

 

[dontlooknow]

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.

Someone's a fan of Film Theory...

I've got to say, I'm enjoying the love for The Martian - after what's been a pretty dour few years of Ridley Scott films, this one really hit the target. It was nice to see Damon in an uncharacteristically lively role too.

Gravity was good, but doesn't translate to the small screen well.

And Interstellar. Well I was excited for it, which didn't help, but man that film was a mess. I'll probably give it another go some day, but not any time soon.

 

[Zontar]

Someone's a fan of Film Theory...

Actually the only episode of Film Theory I've ever seen was their one on Star Wars, specifically the cost of destroying the Death Star.

 

[Fox12]

Interstellar - The best of the three by a country mile, although not without its own pacing and comprehension issues. This is in some ways the Bioshock Infinite of films...the science is ultimately in service to the story, and not the other way around. Irritable pedants will use that as an excuse to attack and dismiss, but like Infinite, Interstellar is a Story Worth Telling, with a lot of big ideas and powerful thematic beats. Children of Men, Interstellar, Her, and Ex Machina are the tent pole science fiction films of the last few years. None are exacting in their science, all are hugely ambitious in their storytelling and scope.

I think this nails it. In many ways Interstellar was more of a thematic film then a strictly realistic one. However, while the science was sometimes unrealistic, the characters never were. That's what pushes it ahead of Gravity and The Martian. If you're going to make a work of science fiction, the emphasis should always be on how technology impacts the human condition, and Interstellar was entirely about the human condition. It had its shortcomings, and there were certainly things I was critical of, but as you said, it was wildly ambitious. Easily the most ambitious sci-fi film I've personally seen in the last five years, and certainly more ambitious then the other films listed in this thread.

 

[Vigormortis]

Gravity - Really needed the 3D to shine. A better film than Avatar, but still seems curiously inert without the 3D and spectacle of the large screen. Nicely paced, good tension, but ultimately more of a tech demo and series of action set pieces than a story.

The Martian - Strictly inferior to the novel. The compression/removal of events to fit comfortably into standard film running length buggers up the conflict arc, and things seem to get easier and easier for Watney over time instead of rising to a natural climax. The altered ending is campy and something of a misread...this is a story that is first and foremost a love letter to hard science and simple, pragmatic solutions. A fun film, but also an utterly forgettable one. Probably the least impressive Best Picture candidate.

Interstellar - The best of the three by a country mile, although not without its own pacing and comprehension issues. This is in some ways the Bioshock Infinite of films...the science is ultimately in service to the story, and not the other way around. Irritable pedants will use that as an excuse to attack and dismiss, but like Infinite, Interstellar is a Story Worth Telling, with a lot of big ideas and powerful thematic beats. Children of Men, Interstellar, Her, and Ex Machina are the tent pole science fiction films of the last few years. None are exacting in their science, all are hugely ambitious in their storytelling and scope.

QUALITY:

1. Interstellar
2. The Martian
3. Gravity

As for that science...all of these films had science advisors, and you'd probably be surprised to learn just how MUCH of the science is actually perfectly feasible/in line with our best understanding. Gravity was the most silly, the Martian was the most serious-minded (although they kind of blew it up in the film with that preposterous ending).

SCIENCE:

1. The Martian (book)
2. Interstellar/ The Martian (film)
3. Gravity

Finally, someone who fucking gets it.

I swear, the more personal nitpicks I hear in regards to Interstellar the more I wonder if I saw the same film as everyone else. 90% of the criticisms make no sense[footnote](see: someone in this thread saying it made no sense for NASA to send a farmer to save the world)[/footnote] and many of the remainder are applicable to just about every science fiction film.

Still...why are we comparing three completely unrelated films? Each is an entirely different kind of story from the others. Their only tangential similarities are that they involve a disaster of some kind and they involve space in some form. Otherwise, they're nothing alike.

One is a grand journey through space and time.
One is a disaster tale set in space as told from the point of view of single person.
One is a survival story on an alien world.

It's like comparing Star Wars to Star Trek. Sure, they feature aliens and space ships, but that's where the similarities end.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

Finally, someone who fucking gets it.

I swear, the more personal nitpicks I hear in regards to Interstellar the more I wonder if I saw the same film as everyone else. 90% of the criticisms make no sense[footnote](see: someone in this thread saying it made no sense for NASA to send a farmer to save the world)[/footnote] and many of the remainder are applicable to just about every science fiction film.

Still...why are we comparing three completely unrelated films? Each is an entirely different kind of story from the others. Their only tangential similarities are that they involve a disaster of some kind and they involve space in some form. Otherwise, they're nothing alike.

One is a grand journey through space and time.
One is a disaster tale set in space as told from the point of view of single person.
One is a survival story on an alien world.

It's like comparing Star Wars to Star Trek. Sure, they feature aliens and space ships, but that's where the similarities end.

I'm with you, movies blow (some aspects of) science all the time but the instant the movie's set in space, better get everything right!
I feel that each one did what it was trying to do, they told the story they wanted to tell, broke a few rules to do it but they did it.

And it's hard to list them in terms of even personal enjoyment because each one is trying to elicit different emotions.
Gravity is suspenseful and/or thrilling.
The Martian is a somewhat lighthearted survival story.
Interstellar is a dramatic adventure.

But I guess if I had to choose, best to... least-favorite: The Martian, Interstellar, Gravity

 

[Kolby Jack]

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.

Zero G is easy to do though. They can simulate it with planes (the "vomit comet"). It's technically impressive, but not really difficult for a big movie to pull off. Meanwhile, space stations are nowhere NEAR that close to each other. Sandra Bullock woulda been screwed immediately.

The other thing is, I can remember Matt Damon's character's name (Mark Watney), but I can't for life of me recall Bullock's character' name. She's just Sandra Bullock in space.

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.

There's a difference between a plot hole (where the internal logic of the movie conflicts with itself) and something that is unlikely in real life. The movie seems to take place in some very idealistic future, but just because the scenario is unlikely in real life doesn't mean it conflicts with the plot.

 

[Jadak]

Interstellar was pretty, but a bit too on the hypothetical and/or ridiculous to the point that strayed more into the real of fantastical bullshit than science. So it didn't really appeal to me as hard-sci (or at all, really), which is too bad as I'd have nothing against fake science / fantasy sci-fi, I like Star Wars. But when you aim for real science and do that, it was just bad.

Outside of that, the plot itself is a bit too dumb. I mean, you're on the clock looking for a new colony planet, maybe don't fuck around with the heavy time dilation planet next to a black hole first? Plus the thing was clearly entirely water, you can see that from space. Doesn't really merit closer inspection.

Gravity was decent enough. Visually stunning and a decent enough plot. although the apparent assumption that literally everything in orbit is within spitting distance of everything was rather irritating.

So... The Martian loses in comparison on the visuals, but the science was mostly fine, story was good, comedic relief was decent and while I'd hesitate to call it excellence, it was good.

Of course, the science was fine largely because they didn't actually do much in the realm of space stuff at all outside of orbital trajectories. Otherwise, it's barely sci-fi to begin with as most of the story is basically an episode of MacGyver with everything but the setting being more or less modern.

Anyways.. The Martian is best in general as a movie, Gravity is best as something that actually has a 'space stuff' vibe to it.

Maybe Interstellar if you come at it with the right perspective and interests, but I hate it too much to consider it's overall quality as a movie in spite of that. Seriously though, "love is all that matters, but we're going to hijack some vague purely theoretical scientific notions and apply them in a nonsense fantasy way to enable a plot supporting that premise". Fuck you, movie.

 

[MrFalconfly]

How many astronauts do we see?

6.

Who, when somewhat developed, had character flaws. The commander was stubborn and put peoples lives at risk. Others were shown to be insubordinate near the end, etc. Meanwhile Watney..

Of those six, there's bound to be a "funny guy". Watney happened to be that guy. I still don't see how that's unlikely that he's the funny dude of the 6 astronauts sent to Mars.

As for frying his communication.

Why should that be a mission breaking? He didn't break the rover (which would have been a truly mission critical piece of equipment), and by the time he fries his text-service, he already knows what the plan is, and what modifications to the rover. He has a map, and known geographical features to use as waypoints (no you don't need a smartphone with a GPS to traverse an empty desert).

As for being smarter than NASA. He isn't. At the most NASA is just a bit more hung up on procedures and tests than he is (typical of a government agency. They usually have a zero-error policy which can mean that their work-process is slower because of sometimes needless bureaucracy).

I mean there's realism, then there's being the best botanist in the solar system and so smart that even NASA isn't on his level.

As for him being intelligent. He needs to be that to actually have the chance of going to space. Astronauts aren't rough oil-drillers, or suicidal MD's. Astronauts of today are probably the closest we'd get to actually see a real-life "Mary Sue". If they weren't they wouldn't be qualified for long duration space-travel.

Basically if Mark Watney wasn't "Mary Sue'ish", he wouldn't have gone home. If he had nervous brakedowns (because of characterization), he wouldn't have gone home. If he had made more mistakes, he'd been killed before getting the chance of going home.

The character Mark Watney is the closest, any kind of fictional media have come to a realistic representation of an actual, qualified astronaut.

I mean there seems to be a whole lot of excuses for him being the funniest astronaut there is who is the best at everything, even better than entire teams of incredibly smart people, with zero character flaws. I mean even frying communication with NASA didn't change anything, he's far too perfect for NASA to even get anywhere near his level of perfection.

When did the commander put anybody's life at risk?!?

Seriously when?

And seriously, Mark isn't the best at anything (that is clear).

He's just the engineer and botanist of the crew. That just happened to be the two skillsets needed to survive on an abandoned Mars base.

 

[Hieronymusgoa]

Funny enough I liked all three but for totally different reasons. The only thing they do really have in common is space.

Gravity was visually stunning and very nicely acted for what is basically a "1 1/2h one-woman-show" by Julia Roberts. It could have been bad would it have been longer than 90 minutes. But it wasn't. And it is not really about space, is it? Could have been set in the russian wilderness or smth, too.

Martian. Well, it is, again, very well acted for the most part, the science....I don't get off on that and can overlook "science-holes" easily if the rest works out pretty well.

Interstellar. The end is cheesy (and maybe even shit). Before that it is (again again) well acted, the music is great (the scene where he leaves his daughter and earth and the music builds up, jesus...thats intense) and the effects are great.
My ex-boss said about the whole movie: "That's the result if atheists make a movie about religion". I thought I got what he meant.
The problem with Nolan is that many think he is a genius when he "only" makes really good movies which definitely lack genius (imho). Since I don't expect him to blow my mind I can watch all his movies and am always entertained well above average but definitely below movie-genius-of-the-century.

 

[Politrukk]

Interstellar though visually sort of attractive was very bland.


A big hurrah for the final plot point but it did not merit the movie length.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Gravity was visually stunning and very nicely acted for what is basically a "1 1/2h one-woman-show" by Julia Roberts.

I think you wandered into Erin Brockovich by mistake.

 

[Pyrian]

Using base 16 numbers and wiping the dust off of solar panels are your standards for unbelievably smart?