Really enjoyed "The Martian" by Andy Weir

[John K]

CBS Has Reboot ‘MacGyver’ Series In The Pipeline

Influenced by the success of The Martin?

[ApK]

Just got back from seeing the Martian. Good thing I have so many theater choices around here because several were sold out.

I think they they did a good job. They had to make it a visually interesting 2 hour movie, not a 10 hour page by page depiction of the book, of course, but I think this is one of the better page to screen adaptions I've seen. Amazingly, even my family liked it.

ApK

[Apache]

My wife and I are going today. We both read the book and am looking forward to the movie.
Apache

[QuantumIguana]

We saw The Martian last night. Very faithful to the book. There were some things cut out and simplified (understandable; it was long enough already), and he's even more snarky in the book, but still very faithful.

Spoiler:

In the movie, he laws down Martian soil and then plants the potatoes in feces. In the book, first uses the feces as fertilizer to grow the soil, then he plants the potatoes.

Spoiler:

In the movie, he pokes a hole in his suit to use it as a makeshift rocket. In the book, he talks about that, but they don't actually do it.

[oren64]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Spoiler:

In the movie, he pokes a hole in his suit to use it as a makeshift rocket. In the book, he talks about that, but they don't actually do it.

Spoiler:

So in the movie he move like Iron-Man, I was disappointed when the captain did't allow him to do it in the book.

Going to see the movie next week, can't wait.

[Apache]

I enjoyed it immensely. Another thing they cut from the movie was the

Spoiler:

The problems he encountered when traveling to the Ares 4 Ascent Vehicle. They left out him shorting out the electronics on the Pathfinder and being unable to communicate with NASA. NASA was unable to warn him of the approaching sandstorm that would keep him from recharging his batteries using the solar cells. They also left out the rollover he had with the Mars Rover.

With time constraints, the movie could not include everything.
Apache

[Aeda]

My fiancé surprised me with a trip to see The Martin tonight. I loved it. It seems very junk food sci-fi, but I'm a sucker for junk food, especially if there's an explosion or two. It's pushed the book far up my reading list -- I'm going to read it as soon as I've finished what I'm on at the moment. I'm too scared to click any of these spoiler tags in case there's some serious stuff that the movie left out!

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Aeda

It seems very junk food sci-fi

What's an example of what you consider "nutritious" sci-fi?

Or do you mean you consider all sci-fi to be junk food?

'Cuz I can't think of an SF movie that I would classify as junk food LESS than this one.

Well, maybe 2001: A.S.O., but only because it's a weirdly deconstructed pile of ingredients and I can't quite say for sure what it is.

[Aeda]

Originally Posted by ApK

What's an example of what you consider "nutritious" sci-fi?

Or do you mean you consider all sci-fi to be junk food?

'Cuz I can't think of an SF movie that I would classify as junk food LESS than this one.

Well, maybe 2001: A.S.O., but only because it's a weirdly deconstructed pile of ingredients and I can't quite say for sure what it is.

I love sci-fi, and I don't consider all sci-fi to be junk food at all! (Edit: And junk food sci-fi is not a bad thing!) The Hyperion Cantos is something that I wouldn't consider "junk food" -- it makes me think about ethics, human nature, and the validity of AI. As I said -- I haven't read Andy Weir's book yet! It's my favourite genre. This movie was just a real popcorn-chewer, not one that you need to watch once or twice through to pick up on all the minutiae.

[latepaul]

So back when I read the book I said:

Originally Posted by latepaul

Enjoyed it but didn't love it. I felt it dragged in the middle. I appreciate it's probably what a lot of people liked about it but I felt there was one too many problem/crisis which got solved with some clever science/engineering that got explained in lots of technical detail. That was helped by the MC's sense of humour but there again I'd like to have seen more colours of emotion than that - he never seem to get down or despondent.

Tension ramped up toward the end though which was fun.

Saw the movie last weekend and enjoyed it. I think the condensing down to movie length necessarily reduced the repetition so it's no surprise I slightly prefer the movie. I think I've also come to terms with the fact/rationalisation that Watney is deliberately keeping himself positive in order to survive and if he were the type to get despondent in adversity then he probably wouldn't be on the mission in the first place. (I still think 99% of the rest of us would though)

[varlog]

Andy Weir has some thoughts on Musk's Mars plans. Nothing about his new book

[ApK]

Originally Posted by varlog

Andy Weir has some thoughts on Musk's Mars plans. Nothing about his new book

[rant]
I'd love to finish reading that article, but I can't stand people who use "factoid" to mean "fact," especially when, as a science writer, they should know what the suffix "-oid" means, even if they are not familiar with the actual history of the word.
I want to punch whoever writes Sheldon Cooper's dialog on the Big Bang Theory for that. A real Sheldon would not only never misuse the word like that, he'd correct anyone who did. Much like I'm doing.
[/rant]

[varlog]

but (Google):

factoid
....
NORTH AMERICAN
a brief or trivial item of news or information.

For me it was interesting to learn how quickly the science behind "The Martian" gets outdated.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by varlog

but (Google):

The dictionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's being used like that, we know. It's a really bad thing. Like the use of "literally" to mean it's opposite.

How long before the dictionaries list "I" and "me" as synonyms, since so many people who don't know the difference between a subject and an object use them interchangeably?

These changes aren't the result of new ideas, or new generations choosing to express themselves differently, or any sort of redeeming motivation.

These are sprung from mistakes due to ignorance and laziness, and changes to the language that are based in nothing but ignorance and laziness should be corrected and resisted.


I'm sure I'll get over my rage and indignation and finish the article shortly.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ApK

How long before the dictionaries list "I" and "me" as synonyms, since so many people who don't know the difference between a subject and an object use them interchangeably?

These changes aren't the result of new ideas, or new generations choosing to express themselves differently, or any sort of redeeming motivation.

These are sprung from mistakes due to ignorance and laziness, and changes to the language that are based in nothing but ignorance and laziness should be corrected and resisted.

I don't entirely agree. Saying that a sentence such as "It is I" is more correct than "It's me" stems from a Victorian desire to try to shoehorn English grammar into the mould of Latin grammar, where it really doesn't fit at all well. "It is I" is an entirely artificial construction that was invented by over-zealous grammarians, and doesn't stem from any actual language usage.

Language does change with time. I still choose to use "who" as a subject and "whom" as an object, but I've long since stopped getting annoyed about the fact that the overwhelming majority of English speakers no longer do so.