Poll: The Martian vs. Gravity vs. Interstellar

[crimson5pheonix]

I'm seeing all these people saying Gravity had bad science and I'm thinking lolwut? I sat next to NASA engineers watching the movie and the only 2 flaws they could realistically find was that a communication satellite wouldn't be in the same orbit as the telescope and that Bullock jumps in and out of space suits too quick.

As to the three movies, Gravity made the best roller coaster ride, but The Martian was the best. Interstellar was goofy, though I did appreciate Hans Zimmer's attempt at destroying movie theaters with sound.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I'm seeing all these people saying Gravity had bad science and I'm thinking lolwut? I sat next to NASA engineers watching the movie and the only 2 flaws they could realistically find was that a communication satellite wouldn't be in the same orbit as the telescope and that Bullock jumps in and out of space suits too quick.

As to the three movies, Gravity made the best roller coaster ride, but The Martian was the best. Interstellar was goofy, though I did appreciate Hans Zimmer's attempt at destroying movie theaters with sound.

What about the question of exactly what force pulled Clooney away to his death? He had stopped by then. I mean sure they wanted it to be dramatic with him having some time to tell her to let go but once he stopped moving his momentum would have stopped.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I haven't seen Gravity so I only picking out of the two which is The Martian for me.

I dislike Interstellar alot due to the audio/ sound were inconsistant (dammit Nolan, be more consistant!) like the sound of the rocket going off was super loud but the dialogue spoken out sounded like whisper! Also the ending was too much of an WTF to me (and lol they should of gone with that other sciencetist cos of love althought she was right in the end).

The Martain was fun, entertaining and with has humour (well ok that robot was funny in Intersteller). It was like a more enetertaining version of Castaway since it was not just focusing on the main character only.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I'm seeing all these people saying Gravity had bad science and I'm thinking lolwut? I sat next to NASA engineers watching the movie and the only 2 flaws they could realistically find was that a communication satellite wouldn't be in the same orbit as the telescope and that Bullock jumps in and out of space suits too quick.

As to the three movies, Gravity made the best roller coaster ride, but The Martian was the best. Interstellar was goofy, though I did appreciate Hans Zimmer's attempt at destroying movie theaters with sound.

What about the question of exactly what force pulled Clooney away to his death? He had stopped by then. I mean sure they wanted it to be dramatic with him having some time to tell her to let go but once he stopped moving his momentum would have stopped.

He's in orbit, you can't stop in orbit. Even if you were to "stop", you'd just fall to the Earth. People say 0g, but the more accurate term is microgravity.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I'm seeing all these people saying Gravity had bad science and I'm thinking lolwut? I sat next to NASA engineers watching the movie and the only 2 flaws they could realistically find was that a communication satellite wouldn't be in the same orbit as the telescope and that Bullock jumps in and out of space suits too quick.

As to the three movies, Gravity made the best roller coaster ride, but The Martian was the best. Interstellar was goofy, though I did appreciate Hans Zimmer's attempt at destroying movie theaters with sound.

What about the question of exactly what force pulled Clooney away to his death? He had stopped by then. I mean sure they wanted it to be dramatic with him having some time to tell her to let go but once he stopped moving his momentum would have stopped.

He's in orbit, you can't stop in orbit. Even if you were to "stop", you'd just fall to the Earth. People say 0g, but the more accurate term is microgravity.

Relative to her and the space station he had stopped, there's always a frame of reference. Sure there's the gravity from the Earth but that applies to her and the station as well so there would need to be some other force that applied to him but not her and the station.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I'm seeing all these people saying Gravity had bad science and I'm thinking lolwut? I sat next to NASA engineers watching the movie and the only 2 flaws they could realistically find was that a communication satellite wouldn't be in the same orbit as the telescope and that Bullock jumps in and out of space suits too quick.

You forgot Sandra Bullock propelling herself through space with a fire extinguisher, which would cause her to spin around her own axis. Something The Martian couldn't stop itself from pulling either.

Beyond that there's just a bunch of stupid stuff, like Sandra Bullock's character being allowed into space at all. She spends a lot of time just driving around aimlessly due to not having come to terms with her dauther's death -- You'd think NASA would've noticed this woman is not all that emotionally stable. You'd also think they'd have noticed that she cracks under pressure during what I assume were pretty grueling training exercises. She even instantly decides to just kill herself when she finds out the "escape pod" has no propellent left.

And then you got George Clooney constantly trying to keep her talking when her oxygen is below 5%, when talking consumes more oxygen.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I'm seeing all these people saying Gravity had bad science and I'm thinking lolwut? I sat next to NASA engineers watching the movie and the only 2 flaws they could realistically find was that a communication satellite wouldn't be in the same orbit as the telescope and that Bullock jumps in and out of space suits too quick.

As to the three movies, Gravity made the best roller coaster ride, but The Martian was the best. Interstellar was goofy, though I did appreciate Hans Zimmer's attempt at destroying movie theaters with sound.

What about the question of exactly what force pulled Clooney away to his death? He had stopped by then. I mean sure they wanted it to be dramatic with him having some time to tell her to let go but once he stopped moving his momentum would have stopped.

He's in orbit, you can't stop in orbit. Even if you were to "stop", you'd just fall to the Earth. People say 0g, but the more accurate term is microgravity.

Relative to her and the space station he had stopped, there's always a frame of reference. Sure there's the gravity from the Earth but that applies to her and the station as well so there would need to be some other force that applied to him but not her and the station.

Doesn't he push off of her (or considering their relative masses push her off of him)? All it would take is a small movement to change his velocity relative to her.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I'm seeing all these people saying Gravity had bad science and I'm thinking lolwut? I sat next to NASA engineers watching the movie and the only 2 flaws they could realistically find was that a communication satellite wouldn't be in the same orbit as the telescope and that Bullock jumps in and out of space suits too quick.

You forgot Sandra Bullock propelling herself through space with a fire extinguisher, which would cause her to spin around her own axis. Something The Martian couldn't stop itself from pulling either.

Beyond that there's just a bunch of stupid stuff, like Sandra Bullock's character being allowed into space at all. She spends a lot of time just driving around aimlessly due to not having come to terms with her dauther's death -- You'd think NASA would've noticed this woman is not all that emotionally stable. You'd also think they'd have noticed that she cracks under pressure during what I assume were pretty grueling training exercises. She even instantly decides to just kill herself when she finds out the "escape pod" has no propellent left.

And then you got George Clooney constantly trying to keep her talking when her oxygen is below 5%, when talking consumes more oxygen.

If you hold the point of thrust in line to your center of mass, it would propel you in a direction, but both movies do acknowledge that it's a terrible idea that has no right to work (but barely does here because movie).

The other points are nitpicking NASA's standards (which is fair, but not science) and while talking may consume more oxygen, keeping someone conscious (especially in such a dangerous situation) is more important.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I'm seeing all these people saying Gravity had bad science and I'm thinking lolwut? I sat next to NASA engineers watching the movie and the only 2 flaws they could realistically find was that a communication satellite wouldn't be in the same orbit as the telescope and that Bullock jumps in and out of space suits too quick.

As to the three movies, Gravity made the best roller coaster ride, but The Martian was the best. Interstellar was goofy, though I did appreciate Hans Zimmer's attempt at destroying movie theaters with sound.

What about the question of exactly what force pulled Clooney away to his death? He had stopped by then. I mean sure they wanted it to be dramatic with him having some time to tell her to let go but once he stopped moving his momentum would have stopped.

He's in orbit, you can't stop in orbit. Even if you were to "stop", you'd just fall to the Earth. People say 0g, but the more accurate term is microgravity.

Relative to her and the space station he had stopped, there's always a frame of reference. Sure there's the gravity from the Earth but that applies to her and the station as well so there would need to be some other force that applied to him but not her and the station.

Doesn't he push off of her (or considering their relative masses push her off of him)? All it would take is a small movement to change his velocity relative to her.

It's been a while but I believe she was holding on to him by a tether that was taut by that point. And for some reason he couldn't pull himself in and was acting like he was being pulled away by something after the tether had become taut and their motion relative to one another had stopped.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I'm seeing all these people saying Gravity had bad science and I'm thinking lolwut? I sat next to NASA engineers watching the movie and the only 2 flaws they could realistically find was that a communication satellite wouldn't be in the same orbit as the telescope and that Bullock jumps in and out of space suits too quick.

As to the three movies, Gravity made the best roller coaster ride, but The Martian was the best. Interstellar was goofy, though I did appreciate Hans Zimmer's attempt at destroying movie theaters with sound.

What about the question of exactly what force pulled Clooney away to his death? He had stopped by then. I mean sure they wanted it to be dramatic with him having some time to tell her to let go but once he stopped moving his momentum would have stopped.

He's in orbit, you can't stop in orbit. Even if you were to "stop", you'd just fall to the Earth. People say 0g, but the more accurate term is microgravity.

Relative to her and the space station he had stopped, there's always a frame of reference. Sure there's the gravity from the Earth but that applies to her and the station as well so there would need to be some other force that applied to him but not her and the station.

Doesn't he push off of her (or considering their relative masses push her off of him)? All it would take is a small movement to change his velocity relative to her.

It's been a while but I believe she was holding on to him by a tether that was taut by that point. And for some reason he couldn't pull himself in and was acting like he was being pulled away by something after the tether had become taut and their motion relative to one another had stopped.

It could just as easily be orbit degradation. Drag from what they were attached to?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I'm seeing all these people saying Gravity had bad science and I'm thinking lolwut? I sat next to NASA engineers watching the movie and the only 2 flaws they could realistically find was that a communication satellite wouldn't be in the same orbit as the telescope and that Bullock jumps in and out of space suits too quick.

As to the three movies, Gravity made the best roller coaster ride, but The Martian was the best. Interstellar was goofy, though I did appreciate Hans Zimmer's attempt at destroying movie theaters with sound.

What about the question of exactly what force pulled Clooney away to his death? He had stopped by then. I mean sure they wanted it to be dramatic with him having some time to tell her to let go but once he stopped moving his momentum would have stopped.

He's in orbit, you can't stop in orbit. Even if you were to "stop", you'd just fall to the Earth. People say 0g, but the more accurate term is microgravity.

Relative to her and the space station he had stopped, there's always a frame of reference. Sure there's the gravity from the Earth but that applies to her and the station as well so there would need to be some other force that applied to him but not her and the station.

Doesn't he push off of her (or considering their relative masses push her off of him)? All it would take is a small movement to change his velocity relative to her.

It's been a while but I believe she was holding on to him by a tether that was taut by that point. And for some reason he couldn't pull himself in and was acting like he was being pulled away by something after the tether had become taut and their motion relative to one another had stopped.

It could just as easily be orbit degradation. Drag from what they were attached to?

I'd have to watch again for more details but she was the one attached. Not sure if the thing she was attached by was also taut and potentially pulling her. Though it'd have to be accelerating fast enough that the distance between them opened that fast once he was detached too

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I'm seeing all these people saying Gravity had bad science and I'm thinking lolwut? I sat next to NASA engineers watching the movie and the only 2 flaws they could realistically find was that a communication satellite wouldn't be in the same orbit as the telescope and that Bullock jumps in and out of space suits too quick.

As to the three movies, Gravity made the best roller coaster ride, but The Martian was the best. Interstellar was goofy, though I did appreciate Hans Zimmer's attempt at destroying movie theaters with sound.

What about the question of exactly what force pulled Clooney away to his death? He had stopped by then. I mean sure they wanted it to be dramatic with him having some time to tell her to let go but once he stopped moving his momentum would have stopped.

He's in orbit, you can't stop in orbit. Even if you were to "stop", you'd just fall to the Earth. People say 0g, but the more accurate term is microgravity.

Relative to her and the space station he had stopped, there's always a frame of reference. Sure there's the gravity from the Earth but that applies to her and the station as well so there would need to be some other force that applied to him but not her and the station.

Doesn't he push off of her (or considering their relative masses push her off of him)? All it would take is a small movement to change his velocity relative to her.

It's been a while but I believe she was holding on to him by a tether that was taut by that point. And for some reason he couldn't pull himself in and was acting like he was being pulled away by something after the tether had become taut and their motion relative to one another had stopped.

It could just as easily be orbit degradation. Drag from what they were attached to?

I'd have to watch again for more details but she was the one attached. Not sure if the thing she was attached by was also taut and potentially pulling her. Though it'd have to be accelerating fast enough that the distance between them opened that fast once he was detached too

Admittedly, I'd have to watch again. But it's something I haven't seen a scientist or engineer complain about.

 

[lechat]

gravity because it made me watch a sandra bullock movie and actually give a fuck.
I don't care that it didn't science the shit out of movie making but for a movie that was basically a "shit gets real" disaster fest it delivered, you never knew what was going to happen or how the character would react.

my main problem with interstellar was that they sent a farmer to save the planet and then decided to 'splain what the fuck was going on at the last fucking minuet whenever it was convenient, which is fine if you don't have a firm grasp of physics but it's total bullshit to send someone to save the world and then the second they get into trouble go "hey buddy we got sent to do black hole stuff, this is how a black hole works"

The martian was fine but you never felt there was anything at stake, In any other movie Matt daman's character would just be the guy that died in the background while the rest of the crew was trying to survive their time on mars and everything was just so convenient, "Oh noes I need to write a letter. here's a pen" "I need to grow a plant. Here's a seed"
The movie is not so much about MacGyvering as it is a guy doing his job under slightly difficult circumstances.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I don't think he's really a Mary Sue.

He may not have many character flaws...

But the other characters don't bow down and worship him. They're not mounting a rescue mission because he's just "That damn special", they're mounting a rescue mission because "Science!".

And things don't work perfectly for him because he's just awesome (As per Rey from Star Wars 7). Things go wrong all over the place. He makes a number of mistakes.

Well the other characters do point out that he's basically the funniest guy at NASA, and there's that part where he's better than an entire team of botanists that work at NASA. A team. I mean he's actually bettter than a team of some of the smartest people in the world who have the same degree as him.

Also off the top of my head I can't think of any real mistakes he makes. He forgets to account for the oxygen in the first chemisty experiment he does, despite being a botanist and mechanical engineer, but then immediately fixes it. And uh, that's about it. Any other problems he faces come from things outside of his control.

I mean as far as Mary Sue's go he plays it completely straight. He's literally The Perfect Man.

At the most he was recognized as the funniest guy in the astronaut corps (maybe JPL).

As for him being "better than an entire team of botanists that work at NASA".
He only said he was "the greatest botanist on this planet" (which is quite easy when you're the only sodding person on the bloody planet), and afterwards (depending on if it's the book, or the film) he's either a bit full of himself (it is his words after all), or he's full of himself AND think it's "cool" that he's being micromanaged (that'd be a character flaw IMHO).

As for mistakes.

Well in the book at least he fries Pathfinder with his drill, and he's a lot more paranoid about the RTG, than he needs to be (it's Plutonium, which means alpha-radiation, which means if the casing break all he has to do is stay 10cm away from the bugger assuming it's inside with him in an Earthlike atmosphere).

But he's an astronaut. Do you know what kind of people we choose to become astronauts (this applies for not only NASA, but ESA, CSA, and Roscosmos). Basically you take the top 1% of people who are cool, calm and collected in life-threatening situations (like being stuck on Mars, without enough resources). Then we shave off the bottom 99% of that top 1%, and those are just the candidates. A Mars mission would be so incredibly high-profile that it wouldn't be unlikely that of those candidates it'd only be the top 1% of those who actually got the chance. It is in this echelon of people you find guys and gals like Watney. People who seem calm, suave and debonair when shit has literally hit the fan (if you doubt me, then have a listen at the audio from Apollo 13. The actual mission audio, not the movie. It's a lot more calm than Tom Hanks was in the movie).

 

[MrFalconfly]

Double post

 

[Casual Shinji]

If you hold the point of thrust perpendicular to your center of mass, it would propel you in a direction, but both movies do acknowledge that it's a terrible idea that has no right to work (but barely does here because movie).

In a zero-G environment you'd have to be so on the ball on that center of mass that even the slightest deviation would cause you to get caught in a neverending spin cycle.

The other points are nitpicking NASA's standards (which is fair, but not science) and while talking may consume more oxygen, keeping someone conscious (especially in such a dangerous situation) is more important.

I wouldn't call that nitpicking, it's calling out a movie that's supposed to give us a realistic set-up about astronauts in space, and how one of these astronauts comes across as terribly ill-equipped for doing their job. I mean, if this was like a Christa McAuliffe situation I wouldn't have cared, but this is supposed to an astronaut trained to the point where she's allowed to perform outside repairs.

And I think keeping someone's very, very low oxygen count in check by telling them to not talk unless absolutely necessary, and to control their breathing, is a heck of a lot more important in keeping someone conscious than shooting the breeze to distract them. He could've just said 'Listen to my voice and remain calm', but like a dumb-ass he insist on having her talk, unnecessarily consuming more of what precious little oxygen she has. Had he not kept her talking that whole time she could've had enough oxygen to the point where he could've taken his time in maneuvering them toward the space station with that little bit of propulsion, instead of going for one big thrust, because oh no, she's running out of air, causing them to crash and him to die. What a veteran.

Though I would've forgiven these faults if the movie had an actual engaging plot and characters.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I'm seeing all these people saying Gravity had bad science and I'm thinking lolwut? I sat next to NASA engineers watching the movie and the only 2 flaws they could realistically find was that a communication satellite wouldn't be in the same orbit as the telescope and that Bullock jumps in and out of space suits too quick.

You forgot Sandra Bullock propelling herself through space with a fire extinguisher, which would cause her to spin around her own axis. Something The Martian couldn't stop itself from pulling either.

Beyond that there's just a bunch of stupid stuff, like Sandra Bullock's character being allowed into space at all. She spends a lot of time just driving around aimlessly due to not having come to terms with her dauther's death -- You'd think NASA would've noticed this woman is not all that emotionally stable. You'd also think they'd have noticed that she cracks under pressure during what I assume were pretty grueling training exercises. She even instantly decides to just kill herself when she finds out the "escape pod" has no propellent left.

And then you got George Clooney constantly trying to keep her talking when her oxygen is below 5%, when talking consumes more oxygen.

That's all well and good, but at a certain point, you have to realize that it's a movie, not a seminar. If these things really distracted you that much while watching, well, that's a failure on the movie's part for not sucking you in well enough so you could suspend your disbelief. I read all you wrote and can't help but think "so what?" None of that stuff actually matters. If you can't push back a collection of tiny nitpicks I'd say that's more on you than the film maker. Not saying that nitpicking isn't fun (my favourite youtube channel is Cinemasins), but I just don't see how it can ruin a movie for someone. My favourite movies are the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I can nitpick the shit of them, but I still love them.

Genuinely curious, what are your favourite movies? I guarantee you could find numerous plotholes and logical inconsistencies in them. Almost no plot is going to be held up to scrutiny because directors simply don't care about the tiny things. They're probably aware of at least 90% of what people will nitpick when they make a movie, but instead of making sure everything lines up perfectly and would work in real life, they go for whatever would have the best dramatic effect. I guess it's a difference of opinion on what you find more important, but I don't see how you could enjoy movies if you value the former over the latter.

That's not to say there isn't a tipping point for when a plot has too many holes that it starts to negatively impact the film in big ways, but I guess my tolerance for that is a lot greater than yours.

 

[K12]

I can't believe The Martian is so liked. I mean it's literally a film about The Perfect Man being perfect at everything.

Is there a problem? He can solve it. Do you think he'd be a bit nerdy? No don't worry he's also funny and perfect.

I mean for all the talk of Mary Stu's, how has The Martian been overlooked. It's good from a hard science POV, but it's clear that the author can't write characters seeing as though the main character literally has no character flaws and is the best at everything ever and completely perfect.

And that's even ignoring the absolutely massive Chinese Deus Ex Machina that appears about half way into the movie. It's just so blatant that I'm surprised people didn't mention it more.

I think that previous Hollywood films (like Armageddon) have been tricking you into thinking that average Joes can become astronauts. We're talking about one of six people in the world chosen for a mission to Mars, the idea that he's a highly intelligent, near omni-competent individual with a near unshakable detemination (plus after he makes contact with NASA he has teams of people testing and advising his every decision) fits exactly with what I'd expect an astronaut to be like.

Mary Sues are implausibly good at everything and the center of everyone's thoughts and actions. Mark Watney is very plausibly good at lots of things and very plausibly the centre of the narrative. There's never any indication that everyone's trying to save him because he's special, they're saving him because they'd try to save anyone in his situation and he's just the unlucky bastard that needs saving. He also makes mistakes and rubs people up the wrong way a bunch of times so he isn't flawless, just appropriately exceptional.

I also think it's a bit America-centric to assume that NASA would be the only space agency in the world to have a near-ready rocket at that time. Russia, India, the EU, Japan or even some private space agencies would all be viable options. I like that it was China and I also like that it was their initiative for NASA to use their rocket rather than some big backroom political deal.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

Martian - Good fun, but I don't think it should be an Oscar contender.
Gravity - Didn't see it. Seemed at least decent.
Interstellar - Hate it with a burning fury.