Kevin's Watch

Starring Mat Damon [he's like a rash these days - everywhere!] this 'science based' tale [which I haven't yet seen but intend to] tells the story of an astronaut who gets stranded on Mars after being presumed dead, and fights for survival against the hostile environment while a rescue mission is mounted to 'bring him home'.

The film makers have made great capital of the films claimed science/technology realism, but this was sorely put to the test at the films post-screening press conference attended by director Ridley Scott, Damon et al. One questioner from the audience said that the films hyped reality had certainly come adrift in some places; the storm in which Damons fragile shelter is nearly destoyed would, he said, in reality have been like being "whipped with talcum powder" due to the thin atmosphere of the planet. Also the low gravity would have rendered normal walking impossible - rather he would have proceeded over the surface in a series of huge 'bunny-hops'. Damon, clearly irritated, answered curtly "Oh - and you would know?", to which the man responded "Well yes, I'm an astrophysicist".

it's not a documentary, and it looks like fun. I really don't need some sourpuss ruining my fun.

Agreed Sarge - Ridley Scott apparently chipped in and made exactly that point; when all's said and done it's first and foremost entertainment. The NASA advisors on the project seem perfectly happy that in the main the film achieves a satisfactory degree of realism in the science/technology areas it aims to present.

Andy Weir, who wrote the book, openly admits to the storm in the beginning being unrealistic. However, it was necessary to set up the rest of the book, so he went with it.

John August and Craig Mazin talk a LOT about gimmes like that in their Scriptnotes podcasts, and the consensus seems to be that you get to ask for things like that in order to set up a story, but not to resolve it.

For instance, if the whole book were completely realistic and the sandstorm came out of nowhere at the end, it wouldn't be accepted. But in asking for it upfront, and saying "Now we have to deal with the consequences," it's much more palatable.

By the way, I loved the book, and can't wait to see the movie

It seems that there are so many real perils involved in space travel and colonizing an alien planet, why would you have to make one up to get a story going?

Also, isn't the movie being marketed as realistic? If so, those were fair questions. I don't think the astrophysicist was being a "sourpuss." Damon was perhaps, making it an issue of the man's knowledge instead of an issue of the movie being fictional. Science fiction movies have been criticized and/or praised for their scientific realism since at least 2001 A Space Odyssey. I think it's a legitimate expectation, unless the filmmaker is doing something like Star Wars, which is just a fantasy story set in space, or Aliens, which is just a horror flick set in space. The genre of science fiction carries with it an expectation that the fiction part is going to be the story, not the science.

Fair comment. Damon's character actually nods to this expectation in his line "I've got four years until I can realistically expect a rescue and a shelter designed to last thirty days. I'm just going to have to 'science the shit' out of this".

Zarathustra wrote:It seems that there are so many real perils involved in space travel and colonizing an alien planet, why would you have to make one up to get a story going?

Because he needed a reason for the rest of the crew to leave him behind, thinking him dead. I'm not saying it was a great option, but it worked in the book.

By the way, did this astrophysicist ask that same question of the novel?

It does sound like an interesting movie, and I plan on seeing it. I hope it lives up to the hype.

I guess it's part of the fun of a post screening press conference to have a bit of a dig at the ego's up on the stage. Remember when Dennis Pennis stood up at the 'Braveheart' one and thanked Mel Gibson for working wonders with his sex-life. He hadn't had it for months he said, but he'd just slept with half the audience.

clever critic is still a tw*t.

many times I have read a critic's review of (music, books, food, tv show, comic book, etc) and halfway through had to read the headline again to remember what it is they were supposed to be talking about.

celebrity critic is an even bigger tw*t.

Agreed - t**tishness does seem to abound in those groups!

peter wrote: Agreed - t**tishness does seem to abound in those groups!

was it Lester Bangs who started the cult of the critic?

I find my favorite critics to read aren't those that I agree with, but those that make me think about movies in a new way.

I saw the film yesterday, and it was pretty good. I couldn't help wondering just how much this was all costing NASA, though, for one man - it could be in the billions.

billions and billions...

Interesting to hear how it stacks up against the book [which I haven't read as yet]?

peter wrote:Interesting to hear how it stacks up against the book [which I haven't read as yet]?

I plan on catching a matinee tomorrow, I'll let you know my thoughts.

The UK reviews are saying it's Scott's best film in a long time.

Yeah, it was pretty good.

it has Matt Damon, always a good start.