I don’t want to spoil things here but let’s just say the book balanced tensions a lot more deftly (both tension from danger and tension from emotion). In this movie the journey felt much too effortless to me. I’m hoping a longer version would do better building tension properly.
By comparison, I think The Martian was able to capture more of a sense of urgency even though it had the same Problem?… Solution! format.
I think I know what you mean, but it did feel pretty tense for me already. I suppose there’s only so much you can do with characters talking to video blogs instead of having an inner monologue
Just curious, how many times have you seen the movie? I went twice, and the first time I felt pretty much exactly what you described. On my second watching, having lost my expectations from the book, it felt more like they went for the right balance, still flawed, but much less so.
I wish I didn’t know about The Martian connection. I found myself comparing the two movies, expecting too much science and problem solving out of Project Hail Mary lol. Instead the movie wasn’t really about that. The core of it was really the relationship between __ and __.
You can understand where I’m coming from then since the book felt just a science-y as The Martian movie/book to me. They didn’t exactly cut the science out in Hail Mary, but instead of making it front and center they alluded to it now and then but didn’t fully explain it to the viewer in some cases (to fit in more scenes, I suspect).
Certain details of time dilation and the ship’s gravity device for ex. really help build important tension that was mostly missed in the film.
To me it felt a little rushed though, so I have my fingers double crossed that an extended version would bring it from “good” to “excellent” in my book.
I could’ve used a more thorough explanation that it was intended to be a one-way trip and that anyone going on the trip wasn’t going to want to go home anyway, because of the substantial risk that society mostly collapses by the time a human can travel back at an acceleration that their bodies could handle, and the time dilation increasing both the risk and aging off any loved ones they might have. That way it makes it clearer that Grace’s strongest emotional connection back home is his students, who will be very different people, if they’ve even survived, and it makes sense that he wants to go back to teaching.
Although I’m also wondering about the pedagogy for teaching a species that doesn’t forget. The need to work through recall itself is less important, but it could be possible that teaching is more about training the problem solving and analytic skills using that body of knowledge.
I haven’t seen the movie, I’ve read the book and seen interviews with Weir.
A couple details in the book that aren’t in the movie: To farm astrophage, they pave over the Sahara desert with solar powered breeders. This, among other things, starts throwing the climate out of whack even faster. Stratt, Grace and a climatologist character who isn’t in the movie muse about how manmade global warming was erased in a month. No, check that, global warming bought them an extra month. Well, if we were able to get that accidentally, imagine what kind of global warming we could do if we really set our minds to it. So they nuke Antarctica to break off a giant ice sheet, to release huge quantities of methane trapped in the ice.
Weir often mentions regret that he didn’t get to add that scene. It was written in the screenplay, and would have been relatively cheap to make because there’s no compositing. Just a dialog scene with no special effects, cut to a pure special effects shot. No editing puppeteers out of the set or layering a live action astronaut in front of a CG planet.
It got cut for time, and I don’t think the scene even got filmed, so I don’t know if a future special Weir Edition blu-ray will include it.
This is a discussion between Andy Weir and his book editor Julian Pavia. At the 6 minute mark, he talks about how both he and screenwriter Drew Goddard wanted the scene to be in the movie, but “It would have added about 6 minutes of runtime, and it’s like aaah, we’re getting pretty long, so.”
Haven’t read the book, what did they screw up?
I don’t want to spoil things here but let’s just say the book balanced tensions a lot more deftly (both tension from danger and tension from emotion). In this movie the journey felt much too effortless to me. I’m hoping a longer version would do better building tension properly.
By comparison, I think The Martian was able to capture more of a sense of urgency even though it had the same Problem?… Solution! format.
I think I know what you mean, but it did feel pretty tense for me already. I suppose there’s only so much you can do with characters talking to video blogs instead of having an inner monologue
Agreed the format makes it more difficult vs an inner monologue
Just curious, how many times have you seen the movie? I went twice, and the first time I felt pretty much exactly what you described. On my second watching, having lost my expectations from the book, it felt more like they went for the right balance, still flawed, but much less so.
But yes, director’s cut please.
I’ve only watched it once so you’re right, it might improve upon a rewatch.
I wish I didn’t know about The Martian connection. I found myself comparing the two movies, expecting too much science and problem solving out of Project Hail Mary lol. Instead the movie wasn’t really about that. The core of it was really the relationship between __ and __.
You can understand where I’m coming from then since the book felt just a science-y as The Martian movie/book to me. They didn’t exactly cut the science out in Hail Mary, but instead of making it front and center they alluded to it now and then but didn’t fully explain it to the viewer in some cases (to fit in more scenes, I suspect).
Certain details of time dilation and the ship’s gravity device for ex. really help build important tension that was mostly missed in the film.
To me it felt a little rushed though, so I have my fingers double crossed that an extended version would bring it from “good” to “excellent” in my book.
Tap for spoiler
I could’ve used a more thorough explanation that it was intended to be a one-way trip and that anyone going on the trip wasn’t going to want to go home anyway, because of the substantial risk that society mostly collapses by the time a human can travel back at an acceleration that their bodies could handle, and the time dilation increasing both the risk and aging off any loved ones they might have. That way it makes it clearer that Grace’s strongest emotional connection back home is his students, who will be very different people, if they’ve even survived, and it makes sense that he wants to go back to teaching.
Although I’m also wondering about the pedagogy for teaching a species that doesn’t forget. The need to work through recall itself is less important, but it could be possible that teaching is more about training the problem solving and analytic skills using that body of knowledge.
I haven’t seen the movie, I’ve read the book and seen interviews with Weir.
A couple details in the book that aren’t in the movie: To farm astrophage, they pave over the Sahara desert with solar powered breeders. This, among other things, starts throwing the climate out of whack even faster. Stratt, Grace and a climatologist character who isn’t in the movie muse about how manmade global warming was erased in a month. No, check that, global warming bought them an extra month. Well, if we were able to get that accidentally, imagine what kind of global warming we could do if we really set our minds to it. So they nuke Antarctica to break off a giant ice sheet, to release huge quantities of methane trapped in the ice.
Weir often mentions regret that he didn’t get to add that scene. It was written in the screenplay, and would have been relatively cheap to make because there’s no compositing. Just a dialog scene with no special effects, cut to a pure special effects shot. No editing puppeteers out of the set or layering a live action astronaut in front of a CG planet.
It got cut for time, and I don’t think the scene even got filmed, so I don’t know if a future special Weir Edition blu-ray will include it.
Do you think it got cut for some dumb political reason?
No I don’t.
This is a discussion between Andy Weir and his book editor Julian Pavia. At the 6 minute mark, he talks about how both he and screenwriter Drew Goddard wanted the scene to be in the movie, but “It would have added about 6 minutes of runtime, and it’s like aaah, we’re getting pretty long, so.”
Well, I can understand that. It doesn’t impact the overall story, it would undeline the desperation of mankind more though