Ad Astra (2019) (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

Regarding the film itself, I’d like to see it again one day, from the comfort of my home, to take a second look. Sometimes the art I end up liking the most ends up being stuff I didn’t like the first time around, so it’s worth a second chance for that. And it’s quite possible that my expectations for what the film was meant to be were not in line with what the filmmakers were trying to do.

After several years of wonderful fall releases of space films that endorsed and promoted the spirit of human achievement and exploration, I wasn’t necessarily expecting a film that was merely using space as a metaphor that was not concerned with or attempting to provide a realistic depiction of space travel.

Spoiler

And I especially was not expecting a film promoted as a space adventure, whose title literally translates as “to the stars,” would ultimately take the point of view that exploration is futile, that space travel is worthless, and that thinking beyond the earth was nothing more than a waste of time and a folly. I found that to be a profoundly pessimistic message.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Just read Bill Hunt's take on Ad Astra not very favorable if you have not seen the film I would not read his review because of spoiler alerts.

I read it, thought it was quite funny but his take on the film focuses on the "science" presented in the picture which is truly only window dressing.

I do think Gray invited this sort of criticism though when he spoke about how "realistic" the space travel would be in his film.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Not to open that can of worms again but just to be crystal clear absolutely no one was upset over your opinions of Prometheus.

Feel free to post in that thread if you want to continue that discussion.

I would only be interested in speaking about Prometheus as a film. Not interested in having people change the topic to me having dementia, being a destroyer of discussions, telling me I don't understand what I am saying, or having to read people attributing things I never said to me...these things (even though I enjoyed the dementia part) are a place I am not interested in returning to.

Here's Bill Hunt of The Digital Bits on both Ad Astra and Prometheus:

"To sum: Ad Astra is one of the dumbest goddamn space movies I have ever seen.
It’s Armageddon dumb, Disney’s Mission to Mars dumb, Battlefield Earth dumb, Space Cowboys dumb, Prometheus dumb, The Happening dumb, almost Hot Tub Time Machine dumb. I know those last two aren’t technically space movies, but that’s how dumb this is."

Now Prometheus is a wonderful example of bad writing, bad acting, horrible construction, and ham-fisted editing but I do not agree with him on Ad Astra. However, his comments did make me laugh...so there is that.

(The story in Prometheus completely depends on every character in the film being a complete moron. Ad Astra does not do this. Although like Prometheus, it also is not depending upon science to help the story make sense.)

 

[Josh Steinberg]

PLEASE. No Prometheus in this thread. Can’t do that again.

 

[Tino]

I would only be interested in speaking about Prometheus as a film. Not interested in having people change the topic to me having dementia, being a destroyer of discussions, telling me I don't understand what I am saying, or having to read people attributing things I never said to me...these things (even though I enjoyed the dementia part) are a place I am not interested in returning to.

I agree. Again my only point is that no one was upset.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I do think Gray invited this sort of criticism though when he spoke about how "realistic" the space travel would be in his film.

On that I agree completely.

When you announce your film as a realistic and scientifically accurate portrayal of space exploration, and then deliver something else, it’s not wrong for audience members who have paid their hard earned money and given their time to be disappointed that they got something else.

If I go to an expensive steakhouse and order a steak, and instead I’m served fish, it’s completely irrelevant if I’m served the best fish in the history of food. It’s not what I came for and it’s not what I ordered and it’s not what I paid for. And it could be something I’m allergic to.

So if you sell me a film based on the idea that it’s a technical film about realistic space travel in our solar system, but it’s instead an allegorical film using space as a metaphor for how there is nothing worthwhile for humanity beyond our own world, well, I’m gonna feel that someone mixed up my order. On the other hand, if they had sold the film more accurately, I could have made an informed decision about whether it was a film I wanted to see, and would have been better prepared to embrace it on its own merits.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

When you announce your film as a realistic and scientifically accurate portrayal of space exploration, and then deliver something else, it’s not wrong for audience members who have paid their hard earned money and given their time to be disappointed that they got something else.

Yes, his statement of intent is in the second post in this thread. I read that at the time thinking that was interesting but he better come though because with every space film there are a whole bunch of people waiting with their knives out to chop the picture up due to science errors.

He never should have said this...

"...the intention is to make a film which is almost science fact, and it takes place entirely in space."

...because oh boy was he asking for it with that comment. I mean he just teed himself up with that. And so a guy like Bill Hunt went to town on him and basically you can't much blame him if he, like you, was expecting some sort of hard science fiction picture.

Gray did after all make it sound like that was what he was doing and watching the film...clearly that is not what he was doing. I mean all the "stuff" in the film looks wonderful, and when people are in space they are weightless on the space ships and the space suits look great and all...but clearly the guy was telling his story first and only using all that "stuff" just to make it look cool and authentic.

Now for me, though I read his mission statement too, I just went in looking to see what he actually did and I was more concerned with "Heart of Darkness" in space than if he was getting all the science right. On that side, to me, the film delivers. So, I like that.

To some degree, and I know you don't want to get into any Prometheus stuff, I think that like Prometheus this film will have it's supporters and detractors but I think whether or not you are one side or the other may depend upon what your expectations were for the film and how you react to what it actually is.

If someone went into Prometheus expecting a goofy horror film set in space...well, it totally delivers. If someone went into Ad Astra expecting a sort of odd picture where a character travels through space working out his issues with human contact and his father...built upon Coppola's Apocalypse Now structure...well, it works, for me anyway.

If you judge either of these pictures based on the science in them...well...you are going to come away wondering what the hell the filmmakers were thinking.

Neither film is using science as part of telling the story...but only James Gray made misleading statements about science and his picture like the one above. So, in that respect I totally understand why people would feel the way they do about Ad Astra.

 

[Tino]

know you don't want to get into any Prometheus stuff,

And yet..........

 

[Malcolm R]

He never should have said this...

"...the intention is to make a film which is almost science fact, and it takes place entirely in space."

...because oh boy was he asking for it with that comment. I mean he just teed himself up with that. And so a guy like Bill Hunt went to town on him and basically you can't much blame him if he, like you, was expecting some sort of hard science fiction picture.

Plus I thought I read somewhere that Brad Pitt asked astronauts and those on the ISS to weigh in with their reviews and thoughts. Not sure if they ever did, but that seems to be asking for trouble, as well.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

And yet..........

Tino, this is the reason I don't want to talk about it because no matter what I say about it there will be some peanut gallery post or posts that I am somehow doing something wrong by bringing it up. I am not sure why I am the one person forbidden to talk about Prometheus but to me there is a truly relevant comparison to be made in terms of how the films were/are received...not to mention that science is not central to either film.

I loved Ad Astra but I am not at all bothered by anybody being critical of it nor saying they can't stand it so I have no idea why whatever I say about Prometheus causes such friction and disjointed response.

You must have once heard that silence is golden...well...if you don't want to have an exchange about Prometheus with me just say nothing. There is no need to follow up on my comment with that nonsense.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Let's calm down now and stop with off-handed comments towards other people. Obviously, we're trying to be humorous. However, it's not pleasant for those we rib so stop it as even I had to change my posting behavior. Thank you.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Plus I thought I read somewhere that Brad Pitt asked astronauts and those on the ISS to weigh in with their reviews and thoughts. Not sure if they ever did, but that seems to be asking for trouble, as well.

Yes, I posted that video I think from the Washington Post and it is Gray, Pitt, and a couple of NASA scientists and it is sort of funny when they ask the scientists how "accurate" the film is the two scientists basically are mostly humorously silent and then say they really find a lot of flaws with all science fiction style films.

I honestly don't go into any science fiction film thinking science will be the core of the picture. The story is always the core of the picture and then at times they will try to make it look "authentic" or really cool using some sort of tip of the hat or consultation with regards to actual science.

Gray and Pitt both admit that making a film like this is a learning experience with the science aspects and Gray I believe says in that video that he did the best he could with the science in relation to the story. So, he admits they diverge from science in favor of telling his tale where he felt it benefited him.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think more disappointing than the science not being completely accurate was that it’s a beautiful looking film set in my favorite environment for a film that’s making an argument that we shouldn’t waste our time exploring said environment. It’s a film that sort of argues against its own existence.

But I grew up surrounded by material that emphasized the wonder and possibility of space, so that was a hard pill for me to swallow. In a sense, I imagine this is what it must feel like if you’re a religious person who buys a ticket to a film believing that it is about your religion, and then see that the film actually argues against religion. Or if you think you’re about to see a film about vegetarianism but it winds up being about chicken farming. I know that’s not a perfect analogy but it’s the best I could think of.

I do think there were times when the narration undercut the impact of the imagery onscreen. I remember the visceral reaction I had to seeing the advertising on the moon, and feeling that was deeply wrong and out of place. It was actually a great “show, don’t tell” moment because it told me everything I needed to know about the state of humanity and society. Pitt’s narration at that time says essentially the same thing, but undercuts the power of the raw visual.

I like the idea of the narration but I think it wasn’t as well written as it needed to be (Apocalypse Now had one of the best ever), and it didn’t need to be used as often as it was. Coppola better understood when a powerful image was more effective than imagery with words.

The film is undeniably beautiful looking and probably not without merit. I do look forward to seeing it on its terms one day.

For what it is worth, I have issues with Gravity about 50% of the time that I watch it. When I watch it and can see it more as an allegory for survival and perseverance, when I see the journey from space to home as a metaphor for being flung away from your life and having to find your way back, it absolutely moves me to tears and fills me with huge emotions. It reminds me of my own mother, who is one of the bravest and strongest people I’ve ever known. It’s beautiful. But if I watch it because I’m feeling like a space movie, as opposed to watching it because I feel like watching a survival story, it doesn’t hold up and all I can think is how none of it makes sense because nothing depicted in the movie beyond the first twelve minutes could actually happen. Brilliant allegory, terrible science.

I always liked Roger Ebert and especially how he said that films should be judged on how well they achieve what they set out to do. Gravity and Ad Astra are bad films if their makers are trying to show realistic space exploration. That’s obviously not the ultimate intention, but enough was said about both of those films by their makers at their release that it’s not unreasonable for audiences to have had that expectation and judged the films harshly if they didn’t feel they got that.

 

[Bryan^H]

Does this film downplay the wonderment of space exploration?
I want to go, but I want an exhilarating, thought provoking outlook on the wonder of space. Not 'Nothing really great about space' concept.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Here's a good video that gets into the science and/or lack thereof in Ad Astra...

WARNING DOES CONTAIN SPOILERS

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Does this film downplay the wonderment of space exploration?
I want to go, but I want an exhilarating, thought provoking outlook on the wonder of space. Not 'Nothing really great about space' concept.

Well, on the whole I would say it does not. In fact the two primary characters in the film are both very excited and obsessed with space travel and exploration...to the point that they would die to do it. All the characters Pitt meets also seem in love with space travel and exploration.

However, the other aspect of Pitt's character is he is quite distanced from his fellow human beings and so there is a message in the film about how his obsession with space exploration eventually impacts his feelings about his fellow humans.

 

[benbess]

Does this film downplay the wonderment of space exploration?
I want to go, but I want an exhilarating, thought provoking outlook on the wonder of space. Not 'Nothing really great about space' concept.

There's some wonder, but mostly the movie is in the opinion of many (myself included) mainly a downer. And the "science" as explained above is mostly junk. The plot for me is also absurd, highlighted by the fact that the movie it takes itself so seriously.

Somewhere I read that the movie had a production cost of about $100 million, which probably means it needs to gross more than $300 million to break even. Right now it's uncertain if it'll get there....

Ad Astra
Domestic Total as of Sep. 30, 2019: $36,299,466
Distributor: Fox Release Date: September 20, 2019
Genre: Sci-Fi Thriller Runtime: 2 hrs. 3 min.
MPAA Rating: PG-13 Production Budget: N/A
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $36,299,466 39.9%
+ Foreign: $54,640,948 60.1%
= Worldwide: $90,940,414

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

There's some wonder, but mostly the movie is in the opinion of many (myself included) mainly a downer. And the "science" as explained above is mostly junk. The plot for me is also absurd, highlighted by the fact that the movie it takes itself so seriously.

I did not find the film a downer at all mainly because...

Spoiler: SPOILER

...it has a happy ending for Pitt's character. Throughout his journey he is wrestling with how he has lived his life and basically how this has affected his marriage. He also knows he has followed the same path as his father. Taking missions that take him away from his wife for long periods of time which has distanced him further from her and really all of humanity. He has inherited that desire for distance from his dad. However, by the time he has returned from his trip to the edge of the solar system he is a different man. He now wants the human contact he has so long avoided. So, rather than a downer it seems they give the film a near absurdly happy ending.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Right, when I left the theater, I felt the film wasn't a downer at all.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Does this film downplay the wonderment of space exploration?

I believe it does.

General thematic spoiler:

Spoiler

The film generally portrays a future where mankind has taken the wonder out of space by turning the moon and Mars into grungy commercialized train depots. They’re looking to exploit resources but there’s little wonder or positivity about it.

More specific ending spoiler:

Spoiler

The film’s climax reveals that the search for extraterrestrial life was a bust, and that it is now certain that there is no life elsewhere in the universe. Brad Pitt’s character, a man whose career has been dedicated to the exploration of space, decides that there is nothing for mankind in the stars and that it is futile and a waste to look beyond the Earth. Pitt concludes that man is not meant to explore and does not belong in space.