The Martian - In Your Face, Neil Armstrong

Marter

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
14,276
15
43
The Martian - In Your Face, Neil Armstrong

The Martian is the best hard sci-fi space movie in years, and a return to form for director Ridley Scott.

Read Full Article
 

drkchmst

New member
Mar 28, 2010
218
0
0
I read the book and am firmly in the "leave him there" camp. I'll likely check it out over the weekend to see if what I hated about the book is in the movie and to watch Matt Damon eat shit potatoes.
 

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
18,157
1
3
Country
UK
I enjoyed it as it kinda remind me of Castaway but at least the main character was able to communicate with other beings.
Also there is that bit of the plot I want to understand with as my level of science is low
Ok so he dug up that dying radiation thing to provide warmth during the night but why isn't he getting radiation posioning?

Also I didn't get why we didn't see any families or loved one perspective from the main character himself (I mean the other crews did but why not him)? We learn that he got parent but no shot of them were seen in the film?
 

Ishigami

New member
Sep 1, 2011
830
0
0
So finally a good Ridley Scott movie again and on top of that a good Sci-Fi movie? Sold.
 

Imre Csete

Original Character, Do Not Steal
Jul 8, 2010
785
0
0
UberPubert said:
and it's even better than Moon.
Well, damn. Now I need to see if it is.
That's really high praise indeed. Although I don't think similarities on a high-concept level can warrant such a comparison, but we'll see I guess.
 
Jan 12, 2012
2,114
0
0
valium said:
this is going to be put in spoilers, in case you actually want the answer
the radioactive thing is in a tightly protected case which is in another tightly protected case, which is barely letting heat through, but is so radioactive, that is still alot of heat. basically, he is playing with fire that is so dangerous his cancer would have cancer if either protective covering failed.

explained in the book, but I guess not well enough in the movie.

the NASA higher up visits watney's parents twice in the book. once to tell them he is alive, and at the end when the huge finale is happening.
I also think
that in the books they mention that NASA was in touch with the Watneys regularly, as well as allowing them direct access to message him. If nothing else, they can't have the parents of the most famous man on Earth left hanging in the wind for reporters. They delayed telling them originally, but once the decision was made to tell the world his parents were at the top of NASA's speed dial.

OT: I guess that Watney regaining contact is not as big a deal as it was in the book, given that Marter mentioned it right off in this review; Weir did a great job setting it up in the book, I honestly thought that NASA was going to spend the entire time guessing Mark's plans based on orbital photos.
 

Steve the Pocket

New member
Mar 30, 2009
1,649
0
0
I remember when Andy Weir was writing webcomics that were getting featured on John Solomon's blog Your Webcomic Is Bad and You Should Feel Bad. How far that man has come.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
valium said:
Scarim Coral said:
I enjoyed it as it kinda remind me of Castaway but at least the main character was able to communicate with other beings.
Also there is that bit of the plot I want to understand with as my level of science is low
Ok so he dug up that dying radiation thing to provide warmth during the night but why isn't he getting radiation posioning?

Also I didn't get why we didn't see any families or loved one perspective from the main character himself (I mean the other crews did but why not him)? We learn that he got parent but no shot of them were seen in the film?
this is going to be put in spoilers, in case you actually want the answer
the radioactive thing is in a tightly protected case which is in another tightly protected case, which is barely letting heat through, but is so radioactive, that is still alot of heat. basically, he is playing with fire that is so dangerous his cancer would have cancer if either protective covering failed.

explained in the book, but I guess not well enough in the movie.

the NASA higher up visits watney's parents twice in the book. once to tell them he is alive, and at the end when the huge finale is happening.
Adding to your explanation.

Also spoilered just in case.

It's a 238Pu Radioisotope thermoelectric generator (we'll call it RTG for the rest of this explanation).

It literally runs off the emitted radioactive radiation of the Plutonium. Plutionium 238 emits Alpha-particles (fast moving helium nuclei, in the 5.5 MeV range). This means that the radiation from the RTG can be stopped by your outer layer of dead skincells. Or your clothes. Or spacesuit. Or just 10cm of normal atmospheric air.

So the book makes the RTG seem more dangerous than it actually is. The "perceived danger" can be explained by the fact that Watney is a botanist, and most likely don't know about radiation safety, and NASA being very safety paranoid regarding astronauts on a different planet
 

OneCatch

New member
Jun 19, 2010
1,111
0
0
Scarim Coral said:
I enjoyed it as it kinda remind me of Castaway but at least the main character was able to communicate with other beings.
Also there is that bit of the plot I want to understand with as my level of science is low
Ok so he dug up that dying radiation thing to provide warmth during the night but why isn't he getting radiation posioning?

Also I didn't get why we didn't see any families or loved one perspective from the main character himself (I mean the other crews did but why not him)? We learn that he got parent but no shot of them were seen in the film?
RTGs [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator] use decay to create heat, which transmits through the container by conduction. However, the radiological materials used create mostly alpha or beta radiation, which can't escape the metal container in the way that gamma radiation could.
So basically all the radioactivity is trapped inside (and would cause really major issues for Watney if it got out), but the heat can steadily leak out.

On topic, I really liked the film. It certainly doesn't go into as much hard depth as the book (which I loved), but it pretty well captured the essence with the various problems they did choose to show.
Damon pulled off the character of Watney, and the supporting cast were great as well.
 

CosmicCommander

Friendly Neighborhood Troll?
Apr 11, 2009
1,544
0
0
I am in great disagreement with the review. The jokes constantly fell flat and were grating at best, their casting choices and disingenuous attempts to foster diversity really annoyed me, none of the characters felt particularly interesting or engaging, and the soundtrack was completely unmemorable and annoying. There were also some strange cinematographic choices (moments of a camera panning around single subjects) which just looked awful, and the CG towards the end of the film screamed fake to me.

To call the film hard science fiction is baloney. The scientific and technical accuracy of this film is riddled with holes (which could easily have been plugged) which completely remove it from the tier something like Destination Moon - which despite being riddled with inaccuracies (owing to deficiencies in information at the time) tried to offer a scientific account of a space voyage. Although it may seem trivial, the geography of Acidalia is completely screwed up in this film (it is mostly flat lowland mostly interrupted with impact craters), no attempt (or acknowledgement is given) to the gravity of Mars and its physiological effects, and the dawn/dusk cycles are the wrong way round.

The technology is also retarded shit, too. Instead of trying to realistically depict what a Mars mission in the next 20 years will be like (as I was hoping at the beginning with the Mars Semi-Direct style Mars Ascent vehicle), instead they engage in huge techno-indulgence and place huge habitation facilities and make the Interplanetary Transit Vehicle a massive and complex facility with centrifuges and everything built in. This film, if anything, is going to be detrimental to Mars Missions by making the public think that Mars transportation and surface infrastructure has to be massive, elaborate, and convoluted; something which has made a Mars mission impossible for decades by placing the space programme in the hands of contractors who constantly push for mission infrastructure like that seen in the film - massive (requiring many launches), elaborate (susceptible to many failures), and making insufficient use of in-situ resources.

Read Zubrin's "The Case for Mars" for the realistic depiction of a Mars mission, which would also have been far more heroic and interesting to see in this film rather than all the techno flim-flam bullshit.

I have another problem with this film, in that it removes the nobility and awe from a Mars Mission. This is an aesthetic complaint with the film, but I think it's vital for those who want a film which inspires future generations for space and wants to instil the spirit of exploration. By having the characters swear and act petty so much, having the crew and the support staff at Mission Control so often be petty and pedestrian and stripping them of qualities which should make us admire and respect them, along with failing to really take advantage of showing and facilitating some awesome spectacle on the surface of Mars (soundtrack, good cinematography, having Watney be stoic whilst there are all out of the mix), the film descends into what feels to me like a pedestrian TV show. It lacks a timeless and epic value, and instead turns into some fag spouting Reddit-tier jokes with the lovely and arbitrarily diverse cast constantly.

It's mindless entertainment. I wasn't bored, but I felt constantly annoyed and tired by this film.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
Caramel Frappe said:
Dang, you almost gave this movie five stars and never bothered looking at your watch. Talk about a movie that makes critics glued to the screen.

OT: Oh, this movie is directed by the same man whom directed Robin Hood. What a turn around I must say, and it's a clear message that anyone can make a great hit if they work hard enough after a few failures .. .. .. *stares at Shyamalan* .... ...
Hey, he also made Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, and American Gangster. Just like every actor makes a bad movie once in a while, so does a director. The strength of the movie comes from the script and the actor's performances.
 

Kotoriii

New member
May 9, 2014
36
0
0
CosmicCommander said:
To call the film hard science fiction is baloney. The scientific and technical accuracy of this film is riddled with holes (which could easily have been plugged)
Geez, you must probably scream in pain when watching Star Wars or other far less scientifically inaccurate science fiction titles. The author of the book never meant to write a scientific journal that also entertains, but he wanted to write an entertaining novel with as much scientific accuracy (and imagination) as he could, which obviously would never be perfect.

Also, being so upset about the "arbitrary" diverse cast... The book also depicts a diverse cast, comprised by Americans with different ethnicities and a German, for which you should redirect your complaint to Mark Wheir, the book author, if you find that totally absurd. After all the European and Russian space agencies and their constantly in space astronauts are also purely arbitrary in our real life context. Oh wait... What I would totally be in favor of complaining in this matter, is that they cast a Norwegian actor for the German astronaut, when there are lots of perfectly capable German actors for such roles, like Daniel Brühl, Til Schweiger or even Michael Fassbender (even if he is more American than German).

There's no problem in disagreeing with the review and thinking less of the movie, but damn, being bothered by scientific inaccuracies in a science FICTION movie and getting all upset about it is just a bit exaggerated. Chill, man.
 

CosmicCommander

Friendly Neighborhood Troll?
Apr 11, 2009
1,544
0
0
Kotoriii said:
There's no problem in disagreeing with the review and thinking less of the movie, but damn, being bothered by scientific inaccuracies in a science FICTION movie and getting all upset about it is just a bit exaggerated. Chill, man.
Pathologising a judgement by claiming it was made in a fit of rage is disingenuous. Attempts to appear magnanimous by claiming that one is even-headed and wants reconciliation and good feeling and the other party is not are transparent and also incredibly condescending.

On the actual substance of your response, though:

Geez, you must probably scream in pain when watching Star Wars or other far less scientifically inaccurate science fiction titles. The author of the book never meant to write a scientific journal that also entertains, but he wanted to write an entertaining novel with as much scientific accuracy (and imagination) as he could, which obviously would never be perfect.
Note that I was referring to hard science fiction, which the novel and film have advertised themselves as. The book was also deficient (and terribly written). Hard science fiction is a sub-genre of science fiction which attempts to make use of science which is within the boundaries of plausibility and known physical laws. It is a tradition in science fiction encompassing many works by Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov, and many other luminaries in the genre. Unlike Star Wars, Star Trek, or other similar works, hard science-fiction relies on technical accuracy being as close to perfect as is possible.

Since the film and the book were sold on the premise that they were in the realms of plausibility, it's expected that they try and retain this "hardness". The technical deficiencies I have pointed out could often be rectified without much harm to the film (the sunset and geography issues, for example). The purpose of this film outside of the monetary is to presumably tell people an interesting story, educate them about Mars and human space exploration, and inspire the public to support and strive towards the exploration of Mars. The technical failures of the film do not just do nothing for the second and third goals, they actively do harm to the second goal by selling misinformation about the infrastructure and technology required for Martian missions to the public and subsequently further deluding policymakers to bend over for the contractor's hard ramming.

Furthering the technical accuracy of the film and book would not have been to the detriment of its uninteresting and unlike-able characters and the Castaway/Destination Moon hybrid plot. It would have been easy for Weir to do (I don't even mind contrivances for unrealistic dust storms/debris, since it's clear that's for the service of plot), and it would have been just as easy for Scott to rectify. But they didn't.

Also, being so upset about the "arbitrary" diverse cast... The book also depicts a diverse cast, comprised by Americans with different ethnicities and a German, for which you should redirect your complaint to Mark Wheir, the book author, if you find that totally absurd.
And I do. The man is a hack who can't write good characters, a plot, or even do solid research on his subject. The fact that the JPL and the ranks of NASA are populated by so many blacks and women - despite the fact that the actual quantity of these groups in the space industry is very low - feels completely vapid and an open attempt to rub diversity in the reader and viewer's face. It clearly had a political agenda, and I very much dislike that.

A rewrite and different casting choices were possible for the film.

After all the European and Russian space agencies and their constantly in space astronauts are also purely arbitrary in our real life context.
I was complaining more about the amount of females in the space crew (despite it being far more preferable logistically to send a male rather than a female on a long-duration space mission), and the forced diversity of the cast in JPL and NASA itself. They could include people from other space agencies to their heart's content.
 

truckspond

New member
Oct 26, 2013
403
0
0
Scarim Coral said:
Ok so he dug up that dying radiation thing to provide warmth during the night but why isn't he getting radiation posioning?
The RTG has multiple mechanisms to keep radiation contained. The material itself is housed within pellets designed to seal in radiation and survive any kind of impact and re-entry heating that can be thrown at it by a spacecraft. Then these pellets are enclosed in an even more durable outer housing which also seals in radiation.
 

FPLOON

Your #1 Source for the Dino Porn
Jul 10, 2013
12,531
0
0
Motherfucking SCIENCE!

OT: I haven't seen Interstellar yet, so I want to see that movie before I go see The Martian...

Other than that, kind not surprised there's humor in this movie... Those trailers really didn't want to hide that fact...
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Neil deGrasse Tyson's take on it is hilarious but awesome. I'll just quote him in a spoiler because it kinda is:

"...the protagonist survives not on Wit, Prayer, or Hope. but by ?Sciencing the Shit" out of everything"
 

Norithics

New member
Jul 4, 2013
387
0
0
CosmicCommander said:
Why does diversity inherently have to be political? There are a dozen reasons to have a diverse cast that have nothing to do with politics, and to only see it through that lens really paints your own perceptions as inherently political, methinks. Like okay, so NASA is predominantly older white dudes. What are we losing exactly by changing that dynamic in fiction? It seems like a really weird problem to have with something.
 

Ylla

New member
Jul 14, 2014
102
0
0
CosmicCommander said:
It must suck to watch movies being you :(

OT: I read the book already but i didnt knew if i could trust Scott on this one, but now it seems hes back. Is it really as good as Moon? because im in then. (Also will its CGI age as bad as the Moon CGI did?).