Really great movie?

Have you noticed a pattern in these answers?

DoubleD wrote:

DotDotDotDotDash wrote:Why?

Because the novel was tremendous and the cast they have lined up for this is equally tremendous. I'm also not the biggest fan of Interstellar.

ChristNolan wrote:

DoubleD wrote:I'll go ahead and say it, I'm pretty sure I'm going to like The Martian more than I did Interstellar.

When's the last time Ridley Scott made a great film.

Depends on your likes. I happened to thoroughly enjoy Prometheus and even the Counselor to a certain degree. Haven't seen Exodus yet.

Before Prometheus (although I wouldn't classify that as a GREAT film but I enjoyed it) the last decent thing he made was Black Hawk Down. Haven't seen Exodus yet either.

DoubleD wrote:

DotDotDotDotDash wrote:Why?

Because the novel was tremendous and the cast they have lined up for this is equally tremendous. I'm also not the biggest fan of Interstellar.

ChristNolan wrote:

DoubleD wrote:I'll go ahead and say it, I'm pretty sure I'm going to like The Martian more than I did Interstellar.

When's the last time Ridley Scott made a great film.

Depends on your likes. I happened to thoroughly enjoy Prometheus and even the Counselor to a certain degree. Haven't seen Exodus yet.

I happen to like quality films. None of those you mentioned fit that criteria.

i9 = haters.

By the way "Exodus" is horrendous.

DotDotDotDotDash wrote:I see your point, although I am pretty sure what he/she was getting at wasn't the drone as he/she would have said "what size was the drone they used?". They obviously meant ALL the ships that were featured, and not solely the drone. Hence my answer is correct. No "aircraft" were used in the movie unless one counts the Learjet (not seen onscreen)...and of course, the drone.

I'm sorry effectively i made a mistake i'm interested in the size of the scapecraft and particularly "endurance" according to the specific gravity created by its rotation. If you've got such informations or know where i can find it, it will be nice

thanks in advance

He and not she......

bolongb wrote:

DotDotDotDotDash wrote:I see your point, although I am pretty sure what he/she was getting at wasn't the drone as he/she would have said "what size was the drone they used?". They obviously meant ALL the ships that were featured, and not solely the drone. Hence my answer is correct. No "aircraft" were used in the movie unless one counts the Learjet (not seen onscreen)...and of course, the drone.

I'm sorry effectively i made a mistake i'm interested in the size of the scapecraft and particularly "endurance" according to the specific gravity created by its rotation. If you've got such informations or know where i can find it, it will be nice

thanks in advance

He and not she......

In reality the Endurance would be 64 meters (209.97 feet) in diameter, and it would rotate at 5.6 rpm. Obviously the model in the film they used was significantly smaller!

Not sure about the Rangers and Landers, but the Ranger Mark II seen at the movie's climax is about the size of a Sedan. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedan_(automobile)

Insomniac wrote:

Nomis wrote:http://io9.com/sorry-interstellar-we-ju ... 1699793860
I hate this kind of bitching on Interstellar.

I'm sure Interstellar will be heartbroken when it hears about this.

More "trailer culture" bullshit.

Indeed.

And I'm pretty sure "I'm going to have to science the shit out of this" is one of the most cringey lines I've ever heard. I'd rather listen to the sounds of the Endurance crew using the space toilet.

With all due respect to the upcoming The Martian by Ridley Scott, I hope it's a great movie, but I'm just shaking my head over people who have seen the trailer to The Martian already, and are already dismissing Interstellar - here's why:

Interstellar is a movie that comes around once in a lifetime - it's my favorite film, and I don't see it being topped anytime soon, and clearly not by a straight forward survival film, such as Gravity or the upcoming The Martian. Interstellar has concepts, ideas, ambitions, creativity, and imagination to the extent that it's as though Nolan made the film for me - it is creative and ambitious storytelling which is timeless.

That said, again, I hope The Martian is a hit, and a lot of fun at the movies. Sure it might have more visuals or CG, but what sets Interstellar apart is how insanely creative Nolan was in using the special effects in service of the story (not the other way around) - and they were so cohesively and organically woven into the fabric of the film.

Nomis wrote:http://io9.com/sorry-interstellar-we-ju ... 1699793860
I hate this kind of bitching on Interstellar.

The article says "this is the gritty, space survivalist film we have been waiting for" and then proceeds to compare it to INTERSTELLAR, which was in no way intended to be a gritty space survivalist film. INTERSTELLAR and The Martian are hardly comparable beyond the fact that they're both hard SF in space. Nolan and Weir had completely different goals for their respective works and both accomplished them.

I'm pretty sure the movie version The Martian will just be a classic case of "the book was better" because the book was fantastic and had too much content to easily fit into a 2 hour time slot.

According to io9's description, over half the plot is crammed into the first trailer, including most of the twists.

thegreypilgrim wrote:And I'm pretty sure "I'm going to have to science the shit out of this" is one of the most cringey lines I've ever heard. I'd rather listen to the sounds of the Endurance crew using the space toilet.

To be fair, while the line isn't in the book, it's most likely meant to be taken literally. One of the first things Watney does to ensure his survival is start storing feces in order to cultivate bacteria for a simple farm.