Discussion
Almost!
4DX is a motion picture technology owned and developed by South Korean company CJ 4DPLEX, a part of the CJ Group. 4DX allows a motion picture presentation to be augmented with environmental effects such as seat motion, wind, rain, fog, lights, and scents along with the standard video and audio
4DX is a motion picture technology owned and developed by South Korean company CJ 4DPLEX, a part of the CJ Group. 4DX allows a motion picture presentation to be augmented with environmental effects such as seat motion, wind, rain, fog, lights, and scents along with the standard video and audio
Nardies said:
Almost!
4DX is a motion picture technology owned and developed by South Korean company CJ 4DPLEX, a part of the CJ Group. 4DX allows a motion picture presentation to be augmented with environmental effects such as seat motion, wind, rain, fog, lights, and scents along with the standard video and audio
The horticultural elements of the film must have been enjoyable to watch then!4DX is a motion picture technology owned and developed by South Korean company CJ 4DPLEX, a part of the CJ Group. 4DX allows a motion picture presentation to be augmented with environmental effects such as seat motion, wind, rain, fog, lights, and scents along with the standard video and audio
Eric Mc said:
Very few "real" astronauts have been so mission focused that they weren't impressed by what they were doing and where they were. And that says a lot for mission orientated military test pilots - who made up the bulk of the early astronauts. Watney is not only an astronaut, he's also a scientist - and most scientists will observe and comment on their surroundings. In fact, getting Jack Schmitt to stop yakking about what he was looking at was really difficult.
I'm only half way through the book so maybe later he might take a bit of time out to look out the window.
I like Watney's sense of humour though.
I haven't looked at the book yet but perhaps the hostile atmosphere and soil of the red planet coloured his views and he saw it as an oppressive landscape which was a prison/grave rather than appreciating the beauty of the desolate vistas? Or I may have drunk too much wine and be over elaborating......I'm only half way through the book so maybe later he might take a bit of time out to look out the window.
I like Watney's sense of humour though.
So far, in the book, he hasn't expressed much of an opinion on Mars itself.
I would compare his situation with someone like Shackleton and his men when they were stranded in the Antarctic. Back in those days, being stuck in a hostile place like Antarctica was about as dangerous as an astronaut might being stuck find on Mars. Despite that, Shackleton and his men still waxed lyrical about what might have turned into their last resting places - as it had already done for some.
I would compare his situation with someone like Shackleton and his men when they were stranded in the Antarctic. Back in those days, being stuck in a hostile place like Antarctica was about as dangerous as an astronaut might being stuck find on Mars. Despite that, Shackleton and his men still waxed lyrical about what might have turned into their last resting places - as it had already done for some.
Just watched it. A typical Ridley film in my view. Technically cohesive, but ultimately lacking something in spirit. And Matt Damon was typically bland and dull. I flicked between being bored and impressed entwined.
Looked like some ropey first takes in there in my book but overall the supporting cast were good.
Only watched it because the ticket was free. The film was worth the admission.
Best part in the film was the LotR book/film in-joke. Parts of the film felt clunky and artificial, the montage moments welded into it, and the, 'if only he doesn't have a problem.'....Oh look a problem.
Looked like some ropey first takes in there in my book but overall the supporting cast were good.
Only watched it because the ticket was free. The film was worth the admission.
Best part in the film was the LotR book/film in-joke. Parts of the film felt clunky and artificial, the montage moments welded into it, and the, 'if only he doesn't have a problem.'....Oh look a problem.
Edited by Halb on Tuesday 13th October 23:21
Halb said:
'if only he doesn't have a problem.'....Oh look a problem.
It's the same in the book, to be fair. A friend and I discussed this before watching the film for ourselves, the premise (book/film) is strong but the story does seem to gravitate from problem to problem. While it's clear that the story would be very boring if it was just "Sol 1: Grew some potatoes. Sol 400: Ate some more potatoes. Sol 567: Rescued", I suppose it's as good as we'll get in terms of plot complexity. Although I've mentioned it before, I wish the film made more of an emphasis on, when in the book, Watney flipped the Rover while commuting to the MAV. Personally I think there could have been much more plot development around him repairing stuff and using artistic licence to travel back to the HAB to scavenge more supplies, to repair what he needed.
All in all though, I think it's a good concept. Here's hoping for a swift sequel as it could be a good storyline.
Watched it last night and thought it was OK, but no more than that. Certainly not something I'll want to watch again.
The worst aspect for me though was Sean Bean. Has there ever been a worse "big name" actor? His Yorkshire accent absolutely killed the flight director role, and considering he was therefore the Gene Krantz of the movie his character failed in every way.
I still think Matt Damon is rubbish too and just overall it felt completely unbalanced. No passion when it needed some "Oh look, I've just discovered I'm alone and stranded, millions of miles from home. Let's do a humourous video blog" and lacking any science at crucial times. "Sure we've got tons of fuel, lets....." you know the rest.
On the plus side it was much better than Prometheus, Interstellar (did nothing for me) and Gravity (abysmal).
The worst aspect for me though was Sean Bean. Has there ever been a worse "big name" actor? His Yorkshire accent absolutely killed the flight director role, and considering he was therefore the Gene Krantz of the movie his character failed in every way.
I still think Matt Damon is rubbish too and just overall it felt completely unbalanced. No passion when it needed some "Oh look, I've just discovered I'm alone and stranded, millions of miles from home. Let's do a humourous video blog" and lacking any science at crucial times. "Sure we've got tons of fuel, lets....." you know the rest.
On the plus side it was much better than Prometheus, Interstellar (did nothing for me) and Gravity (abysmal).
croyde said:
So you come out of the cinema covered in fecal matter and red dust, sick of potatoes and smelling as if you haven't had a shower in 2 years.
Pretty much as a I entered the cinema 
I thought it would be a bit annoying, and in some ways it was. However, the seats tilting, for example when the MAV was preparing for take off was good, decompression scenes where also good, there are a number of large fans that fired up instantly, along with air bursts from the top of the seats. Fortunately they didn't use a fecal matter scent, an opportunity missed.
budfox said:
Watched it last night and thought it was OK, but no more than that. Certainly not something I'll want to watch again.
The worst aspect for me though was Sean Bean. Has there ever been a worse "big name" actor? His Yorkshire accent absolutely killed the flight director role, and considering he was therefore the Gene Krantz of the movie his character failed in every way.
I still think Matt Damon is rubbish too and just overall it felt completely unbalanced. No passion when it needed some "Oh look, I've just discovered I'm alone and stranded, millions of miles from home. Let's do a humourous video blog" and lacking any science at crucial times. "Sure we've got tons of fuel, lets....." you know the rest.
On the plus side it was much better than Prometheus, Interstellar (did nothing for me) and Gravity (abysmal).
Every Flight Director cannot be portrayed as if they were Gene Kranz clones. You do know that, during the Apollo era, there were other Flight Directors besides Gene Kranz? And one of them was English - John Hodge.The worst aspect for me though was Sean Bean. Has there ever been a worse "big name" actor? His Yorkshire accent absolutely killed the flight director role, and considering he was therefore the Gene Krantz of the movie his character failed in every way.
I still think Matt Damon is rubbish too and just overall it felt completely unbalanced. No passion when it needed some "Oh look, I've just discovered I'm alone and stranded, millions of miles from home. Let's do a humourous video blog" and lacking any science at crucial times. "Sure we've got tons of fuel, lets....." you know the rest.
On the plus side it was much better than Prometheus, Interstellar (did nothing for me) and Gravity (abysmal).
Eric Mc said:
I'm now reading the book and enjoying it. However, what it does seem to lack is a little bit of literary grandeur. Even if I was the only man on Mars struggling to stay alive, now and then I would still stop and pause every so often to take in the view and appreciate where I actually am - and gaze in awe.
There is very little of that in the book. In fact, one of the best parts of the film for me was the visual interpretation of what it is like to actually stand on Mars and contemplate the view. The Marscapes were very well done. The book lacks this "big vision".
Andy Weir won't win any literary prizes for his prose writing.
I worked my way through the book but didn't enjoy the minute technical detail that much and skipped many such paragraphs. I was looking for the human frailty and insecurities considering his long and lonely predicament but they weren't particularly expressed. And yes, he should have spent more time looking into the darkness of space and the blue/green pixel that is home. I bet the Milky Way looks impressive from Mars. He also said "Yay!" far too many times for my liking too - slightly annoying.There is very little of that in the book. In fact, one of the best parts of the film for me was the visual interpretation of what it is like to actually stand on Mars and contemplate the view. The Marscapes were very well done. The book lacks this "big vision".
Andy Weir won't win any literary prizes for his prose writing.
I think I'll enjoy the film more.
RegMolehusband said:
And yes, he should have spent more time looking into the darkness of space and the blue/green pixel that is home.
There would be no 'blue/green pixel', not without a powerful telescope!
RegMolehusband said:
I bet the Milky Way looks impressive from Mars.
http://imgur.com/sMi6BiaRegMolehusband said:
He also said "Yay!" far too many times for my liking too - slightly annoying.
I think I'll enjoy the film more.
There are no 'Yay!(s)', no pop music and no juvenile humour designed to appeal to American audiences in the movie anywhere.I think I'll enjoy the film more.
Nardies said:
I thought it would be a bit annoying, and in some ways it was. However, the seats tilting, for example when the MAV was preparing for take off was good, decompression scenes where also good, there are a number of large fans that fired up instantly, along with air bursts from the top of the seats. Fortunately they didn't use a fecal matter scent, an opportunity missed.
I watched Fury Road in some sort of interactive seat. It was the best thing about the whole film.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff