Beautiful! Looks spot on! This is really the only must see movie this year for me and I can’t wait!
Never read the book and just saw the trailer today. Is there any reason to see this film now? They just told me 80% of the story.
There’s a mission on Mars, a Mars storm is coming so the have to evacuate the planet, Matt Damon gets left behind presumed dead but not for sure, government/nasa say “yeah, he’s dead”, Damon has to survive, figures out how to grow food, figures out how to send message, message is received, mission to save Damon, mission is dangerous, will mission be successful??
I’m glad the trailer just elimated any possible dramatic tension of “what’s going to happen next?” cause who needs that?
Well, the book told me 100% of the story and I’m still planning on seeing the film.
But I get your point about the spoilery trailer. I’m a big James Bond fan and ate up every trailer for Skyfall. When I finally saw the film it quickly dawned on me that I had already seen pretty much every scene. In fact, I even toyed with the idea of trying to assemble the film from the trailer, just for the hell of it.
Perhaps they are reassuring readers that they have not screwed up the plot of the book.
Consider me reassured. So far they seem to have included:
[ul]
[li]The dust storm that forced the emergency evacuation and presumably killed Watney in the first place. Andy Weir has stated that this is the least scientific part of the story but he left it in as a plot device to strand the astronaut. With 1/100 the atmospheric pressure of Earth, a dust storm simply isn’t going to be that violent.[/li][li]Hermes looks great.[/li][li]Hab looks great.[/li][li]The hydrogen explosion. Check.[/li][li]Potato field. Check.[/li][li]The Hermes mutiny. Check.[/li][li]The Air lock explosion. Check.[/li][li]Stripped down MAV. Check.[/li][/ul]
Are you being reassured, or complaining? 
I read it last year, I agree great book. My bet, it will be compared to Mission to Mars. It shares too many similar plot points.
I can tell you 100% of the story right now: “Astronaut must survive being stranded on Mars.” This is, at least in the book, a story very much about the details. The basic story structure here is, “Mark Whatney solves problem; something breaks creating new problem; Mark Whatney solves problem. Repeat until rescued.” The joy of the book is his inventiveness in fixing things, and the humor he uses to describe his predicaments. Given that, the trailer isn’t actually all that spoilery. “He grows some food,” isn’t the interesting part: it’s watching him figure out how to grow it that’s fun. How well that will translate to film is questionable, though, particularly given how much of Whatney’s character, the nature of the problems he’s facing, and the nature of his solutions, is conveyed through first-person narration. I have no idea how they’re going to do the pirate ninja thing, for example, short of having Matt Damon just sit there and narrate it into a camera, and that’s one of the funniest parts of the book.
Some of both.
Reassured that they’re staying true to the book.
Complaining on behalf of those who didn’t read the book. I would have preferred a somewhat more enigmatic trailer.
But such is the nature of trailers today. Still, I’m seeing this when it hits the theaters and I’ve read the book. So that should tell you something.
The journey is the story. And there is plenty of story. Did anyone really think Tom Hanks was going to die on that island?
Count me in as one who is now interested in seeing the film. I don’t get to hepped up about movies nowadays but I have been enjoying the handful of “realistic” space films we have been getting lately (Europa Report, Gravity, Interstellar).
So, while he is Rube Goldberging the Hab module to allow him to survive until earliest possible rescue, and is unsure that anyone knows he is still alive, the main ship is going to try to reprovision on the fly and slingshot arond Earth to go back for him? Cool.
No, all the time. Plants respire in darkness. In light, they respire and photosynthesise simultaneously.
Oh, boy. A Matt Damon movie. I haven’t seen him in a movie since… 3 days ago.
Rich Purnell is a steely-eyed missile man.
So looking forward to this movie.
- From the guy who loves survival stories.
They DAMN well better have that line in the movie!! :mad:
Net reaction. Draw a flowchart of a life support system. Only the net reactions matter at each stage.
I was under the impression that plants produced oxygen in light, and CO[sub]2[/sub] in darkness.
Mangetout wants everyone to know that technically only part of the plant is photosynthesizing at a given time, and the rest of the plant is using energy produced by that portion. The krebs cycle may even be going on inside the chloroplast containing cells in the leaves.
The net reaction, though, is overall the plant is releasing more oxygen than it consumes elsewhere, and consuming more CO2 than it releases.
Thanks, Habeed.
Boy, what a good reason to not want to see a movie. Did you catch a 5th run showing of Interstellar lately, 7 months after its release? Or maybe a toddler in the house that won’t sleep unless he sees Monument Men before bedtime, 16 months after it was first seen in theaters? I get it - he just pumps out movies left and right that no one can get away from. I mean, just look at that massive $219,438 gross from his other 2014 movie, The Zero Theorem!
And I thought blindly questioning a movie simply because they had cast the very capable Kristin Wiig was threadshitting. When did we start judging a movie based on performances we haven’t seen yet? I understand disliking a premise, or a plot device, or even a director or screenwriter. But actors that have shown themselves to be pretty versatile? Weird.