Poll: The Martian vs. Gravity vs. Interstellar

[JohnnyDelRay]

I'll throw in my lot with the Martian. Yeah, it had it's flaws, in that in trying to depict a very tough situation involving the world, people agreeing together to do "what's right", and a man being stranded on Mars, it still just somehow meant to feel all a bit too convenient and predictable. Like when you know something's going to go wrong, and yet right itself. Not that bad though that it still managed to maintain enough suspense and curiosity that I feel it's the best of the three.

Gravity was pretty good but just felt like a story I feel I've heard a few times by young science fiction writers (spinning in space with little hope of survival or returning to civilization, human sacrifice, etc). Since I was a kid, I feel like I've read this story in at least a dozen or so iterations, ranging from totally amateurish writing to full-fledged sci-fi novella. Sandra pulled of a convincing enough act considering it's probably entirely green screen, and there were some nice shots in it as well.

Interstellar I enjoyed the least. It just seemed like it tripped all over itself. Why the hell would humanity need saving if we had the resources to send people planet hopping in different galaxies anyway. And why emotional, resource hungry, fragile humans? But whatever. It tries to tie in reality and science where it suits itself as well. Gravitational pulls, wormholes etc. But then blackholes are in the equation and why is there still light, why aren't people being stretched into spaghetti when entering one. By that point I was just like ok now it's just a fantasy thing where anything goes and I lost interest in what it was trying to say, and it might as well have been Back to the Future(Past).

 

[MrFalconfly]

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

Seriously when?

At the start when she refuses to get on the ship when she's searching for Watney. And again at the end when she causes an explosion in the ship.

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.

Whilst also being amazing at chemical engineering, emergency self-surgery, high-tech space repairs on things like Pathfinder and the Rover, and problem solving on figuring out things that a botanist or mechanical engineer wouldn't know, like hexadecimal. In fact he's so good at all these things he doesn't even need NASA's help to do like any of them. He's actually smarter than NASA.

1) That's he own life, so that doesn't count. The rest of the crew were aboard the ERV with strict orders to take off if the tilt got too severe.

2) Using a bomb of known strength, made by a chemist who knows what he's doing, and generally being within specified safety parameters of what the Hermes can do, so that wasn't really a safety risk (the bomb wasn't that big. It was just made to breach one door, not cause any actual thrust. That was the internal atmosphere's job).

3) Chemical engineering?!? Oh the hydrazine. Well if your job is to be the "Mr Fixit" of the crew, you better know what stuff your ship runs on, and the properties of it. As for "emergency self surgery". That's part of the training (presumably) to be a Mars Astronaut. The flight surgeon is there for the bigger picture, not to be the first, and only means of tending wounds.

As for Pathfinder. All that needed was a battery-change. You don't call a Ph.D. to change the batteries in your laptop. As for the Hexadecimals. That was Beth Johanssen's work. She's a computer technician.

So in conclusion.

No, he isn't smarter than NASA.

 

[Vigormortis]

Gotta love all of the 'couch physicists' claiming, "Interstellar got so much science wrong it flew straight into pure fantasy."

Except, the man who was science adviser for the film (physicist Kip Thorne, who also wrote the original story the film was based on) not only wrote a book explaining just how accurate much of the science was in the film, but he also authored two papers detailing the discoveries they made when working on the special effects for the black hole.

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole/

http://www.space.com/28075-science-of-interstellar-book-review.html

Yep. Interstellar got all the science wrong...

I swear, this community hates that film not because it was a bad movie, or because it supposedly "got the science wrong", but simply because Nolan was director.

 

[Dazzle Novak]

Gotta love all of the 'couch physicists' claiming, "Interstellar got so much science wrong it flew straight into pure fantasy."

Except, the man who was science adviser for the film (physicist Kip Thorne, who also wrote the original story the film was based on) not only wrote a book explaining just how accurate much of the science was in the film, but he also authored two papers detailing the discoveries they made when working on the special effects for the black hole.

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole/

http://www.space.com/28075-science-of-interstellar-book-review.html

Yep. Interstellar got all the science wrong...

I swear, this community hates that film not because it was a bad movie, or because it supposedly "got the science wrong", but simply because Nolan was director.

No, I dislike it because it was a bad movie filled with cardboard cutouts making bad decisions over Nolan's sterile approximation of "emotions". Even the idiot girl who needed it explained loudly and repeatedly that Gargantua was a black hole and not Saturn knew enough to laugh derisively when Anne Hathaway started shrieking that, "Love is a universal constant like gravity" horseshit.

As for the science, eh. I'll trust my D- in high school physics intuition that blackholes with gravity so harsh light can't escape don't double as worm holes and if it shredded the ship it would shred the astronaut inside.

I also wonder how a planet can suffer time dilation from its adjacent black hole without being affected by gravity in other ways or why astronauts would knowingly choose the "1 hour=20 years" planet orbiting a fucking black hole as a first resort.

Maybe Kip Thorne has all the theoretical equations that squares the unintuitive leaps the movie took, but none of it came across to me as a moviegoer. I suspect a lot of it works piecemeal: "In this extremely specific, borderline impossible scenario, one could theoretically..."

I'm admittedly not a fan of Nolan because he can rarely write characters or thematic subtext without obnoxious exposition. Compare, for example, Inception with Paprika (the anime that inspired it). One's a thorough exploration of the subconscious and identity while the other's a knockoff Ocean's 11/ lecture in shifting, made-up dream logic bullshit: "Oh yeah, if you die in a dream, your brain turns to mush now. Reasons! Stakes!"

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

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.

I've not seen The Martian or Gravity yet, but I'll get around to both eventually.

But I'll add to the supporting voices of what seems to be an unfairly maligned or misunderstood film; I adored Interstellar (perhaps my favourite Nolan film), as to me it's like Terrence Malick directing 2001 - the scope, precision, and a nod to science-y authenticity of the latter, and the intimate humanity, soul, and awe at the world/the universe of the former. Interstellar's one of the best and most inspiring sci-fi films I've ever seen, and so Gravity and The Martian aren't likely to match it.

Though as has also been pointed out; direct comparisons are kinda meaningless, given they each set out to do different things in different ways.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

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.

Not counting the first act, which presents conflict rather than develop it, things go wrong for Mark exactly once, and that's one full hour into the movie.

 

[happyninja42]

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.

Not counting the first act, which presents conflict rather than develop it, things go wrong for Mark exactly once, and that's one full hour into the movie.

The movie definitely reduced the number of problems that Mark ran into by a lot. In the book, things go wrong all the time. In fact, it was a pretty funny running gag, that the author would end a chapter with an optimistic statement like "With this new problem solved, I think things are looking up for me!" then start next chapter with "I'm fucked and I'm going to die!" That's not a paraphrashing either, he literally starts a chapter with that sentence. xD

I think the movie had to do some major trimming, just for time's sake, but also because some of the problems, while serious, aren't very dramatic.

Spoiler

Like the sandstorm problem he ran into on the way to Ares 4, or the fact that he broke Pathfinder and lost contact with Earth entirely for the last 1/3 of the book. Or that the rover flips and almost kills him while traveling. Lots of little things, that are serious threats in reality, given his situation, but that don't translate well to a dramatic story. And while I get the rationale behind this choice (assuming my theory is correct), it did make for a less dangerous journey for him.

One thing I did like, that they kind of got across in the movie from the book, was how his mind was getting a little wonky from all of his MacGyvering he had to do. And how by the end, he came up with a fairly insane idea, that they wisely shot down in the book, but went with in the movie, because it looked more dramatically cool.

 

[happyninja42]

The Expanse.

Not a movie but a TV show you say? Yes, true, but it makes all three movies look like idiot children.

Actually that's doing The Martian a rather large disservice. But The Expanse takes The Martian and then applies it to a civilization in space. It is so much more epic in scope.

I agree that the Expanse is a good show so far. I wouldn't say it's better (or worse) than the 3 mentioned above. It's a different medium. I only wish they hadn't made some of the changes they did for the tv show compared to the book. The alterations they made...puzzle me a great deal. The only reason for the changes that make sense, boil down to basically "Because more drama, lulz". Which is somewhat annoying, but for a tv show, I guess makes sense.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Snip

Okay Dazzle, I'll bite. What are some films you liked? Other than Paprika, which...meh. I've heard you sneer condemnation at a couple of films now, which is fine, I occasionally sneer condemnation at films and shows myself...their popularity be damned. I'd just like to have some idea of what you consider good. What would be a rough top five, perhaps?

 

[Hieronymusgoa]

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.

Did you just call the movie Erin Brokovich "visually stunning" ?

Anyway, all in all I can sign your view on Interstellar being the best of the three.
Still they all do okay in their own right.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Did you just call the movie Erin Brokovich "visually stunning" ?

Oh absolutely. Those long lens shots of dingy county offices evoke a modern day Kurosawa!

Actually I'll come clean. I've never even seen Erin Brockovich. My life is a sham.

 

[happyninja42]

Not entirely true.

What is not entirely true about what I said?

For example all of the bad things that happen to Watney, bar maybe setting the drill against the metal thing, are outside of his control.

Despite that, because he's The Perfect Man, all these bad things barely slow him down, let alone massively inconvenience him.[/quote]

How is he the perfect man? The fact that the protagonist of a story overcame all of the obstacles put in front of him, and survived to the climax/resolution of the story? Um, that's just how storytelling works. He got angry at his situation, he was upset, showed weakness and depression at the problems in front of him. He showed fear at the things he had to endure, and basically showed that he was a normal human being. In what way was he perfect, aside from my already mentioned "He overcame his obstacles like every protagonist ever since the beginning of ever"

Did you just call the movie Erin Brokovich "visually stunning" ?

Oh absolutely. Those long lens shots of dingy county offices evoke a modern day Kurosawa!

Actually I'll come clean. I've never even seen Erin Brockovich. My life is a sham.

Well, some of the shots of Julia Roberts cleavage were pretty "visually stunning" I guess. I mean she intentionally put them on display to fluster county functionaries and get documentation she needed. So yeah...uh, boobies are stunning I guess? *shrugs* Yeah, I got nothin' else to defend that with other then boobies!!

 

[Hieronymusgoa]

Did you just call the movie Erin Brokovich "visually stunning" ?

Oh absolutely. Those long lens shots of dingy county offices evoke a modern day Kurosawa!

Actually I'll come clean. I've never even seen Erin Brockovich. My life is a sham.

Ours, both, is a sham then because I didn't see it either But since female optics are wasted on me I would have to rate that movie solely on the acting and since Rotten says "84%" that might actually not be such a bad movie after all ^^

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Well, some of the shots of Julia Roberts cleavage were pretty "visually stunning" I guess. I mean she intentionally put them on display to fluster county functionaries and get documentation she needed. So yeah...uh, boobies are stunning I guess? *shrugs* Yeah, I got nothin' else to defend that with other then boobies!!

I didn't realize you were also a fan of boobies. Check out these gorgeous numbers.

Spoiler: Boobies

Since Rotten says "84%" that might actually not be such a bad movie after all ^^

I can't trust Rotten Tomatoes any more. The binary "fresh/rotten" metric is decent for avoiding absolute stinkers, but makes a poor distinction between a mediocre film no one really disliked, and a fantastic film that was somewhat polarizing. I've seen quite few 90% clunkers that were inoffensive but also utterly uninspired.

 

[Pyrian]

Despite that, because he's The Perfect Man, all these bad things barely slow him down, let alone massively inconvenience him.

The entire movie is about him being massively inconvenienced. That is the entire plot. And you missed it somehow.

 

[happyninja42]

Well, some of the shots of Julia Roberts cleavage were pretty "visually stunning" I guess. I mean she intentionally put them on display to fluster county functionaries and get documentation she needed. So yeah...uh, boobies are stunning I guess? *shrugs* Yeah, I got nothin' else to defend that with other then boobies!!

I didn't realize you were also a fan of boobies. Check out these gorgeous numbers.

Spoiler: Boobies

MMMmm, yes, those are...nice. I'll be in my bunk.

Since Rotten says "84%" that might actually not be such a bad movie after all ^^

I can't trust Rotten Tomatoes any more. The binary "fresh/rotten" metric is decent for avoiding absolute stinkers, but makes a poor distinction between a mediocre film no one really disliked, and a fantastic film that was somewhat polarizing. I've seen quite few 90% clunkers that were inoffensive but also utterly uninspired.

I guess it depends on how much you like movies like the upcoming Concussion movie with Will Smith. Becuase Erin Brokovich is basically the same kind of movie. Lone, average person fighting a one person battle against Big Business on behalf of their poor defenseless victims. Though I do give the Erin Brokovich story a bit more weight than Concussion, seeing as what happened to them was without their knowledge, as opposed to professionals engaging in a sport that makes them smash their heads into things repeatedly, and are somehow shocked that brain damage can result from it. But that's just me.