The Martian - In Your Face, Neil Armstrong

[Cowabungaa]

Glad to see Scott is, apparently, back to form. However, I still can't get over the fact that the trailers spoiled about 75% of the plot. I hate that trend. I'm glad I read the book so nothing was really spoiled for me personally, but it did teach me to no longer look up trailers for movies I'm excited about.

To call the film hard science fiction is baloney.

It's not, seeing as the term hard sci-fi is mostly there to set it aside from other sci-fi. Despite its inaccuracies, it's not exactly hard to argue its different attitude towards the plausibility of the film's sci-fi compared to sci-fi Star Trek, Star Wars or the The Culture novels. The differences between "Mars' gravity isn't correctly portrayed." and "Turbo-lasers can't physically exist." are pretty damn big. What sets hard sci-fi apart is the general mindset regarding the science in its work, not whether it gets every minutia right. To argue that The Martian doesn't want to work within the boundaries of established science is a little silly. 100% Correct or not, the movie's sci-fi elements are still very grounded compared to sci-fi like Star Wars. And that's what makes it a legit hard sci-fi story.

As for NASA's diversity; it's still a sci-fi movie set in the future. Sure NASA right now might not look like that, but it might in the near future. And it seems that, by portraying future-NASA that way, that's what the writer hoped for. And you know what? So do I. I don't see what's wrong about that.

 

[CosmicCommander]

As for NASA's diversity; it's still a sci-fi movie set in the future. Sure NASA right now might not look like that, but it might in the near future. And it seems that, by portraying future-NASA that way, that's what the writer hoped for. And you know what? So do I. I don't see what's wrong about that.

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.

I am resentful of the encroachment of this line of thinking. It strikes me as a deliberate attempt to make the cast more diverse in order to "empower" viewers to think that anyone can work at NASA. It may be a benign message, but I resent subtle propaganda like this being used to convey it. In the media, we're seeing disproportionate numbers of blacks, women, asians, and so on in roles; it does feel like a deliberate attempt by producers and studios to rub the public's face in diversity to make them accept their version of reality.

It's the same technique used by European governments (Germany, France, the UK, etc) who import migrants en masse to rub the face of the right in diversity and change the environment so opponents have to accept their version of reality. You simply import your desired demographics onto the screen, and then go with insinuations of racism or reactionaryism if a person feels as if the move is forced or has an agenda of normalising the disproportionate presence of minorities in higher tiers of media and industry.

It's not, seeing as the term hard sci-fi is mostly there to set it aside from other sci-fi. Despite its inaccuracies, it's not exactly hard to argue its different attitude towards the plausibility of the film's sci-fi compared to sci-fi Star Trek, Star Wars or the The Culture novels. The differences between "Mars' gravity isn't correctly portrayed." and "Turbo-lasers can't physically exist." are pretty damn big. What sets hard sci-fi apart is the general mindset regarding the science in its work, not whether it gets every minutia right. To argue that The Martian doesn't want to work within the boundaries of established science is a little silly. 100% Correct or not, the movie's sci-fi elements are still very grounded compared to sci-fi like Star Wars. And that's what makes it a legit hard sci-fi story.

It certainly tries to be hard science fiction, and is best set in the genre for expediency. It is a terrible example of hard science fiction, however. The fact that Weir and Scott made some fundamental mistakes (which weren't for plot expediency) which could have easily been discovered and corrected betrays the fact that The Martian is not a work made which aspires to the peaks of hardness.

The work does not attempt to awe us with Mars. It shies away from showing how truly difficult it would be to be a stranded astronaut (or even a normal crew). And I'll reiterate how harmful the depiction of the Mars mission in the book is to actually getting a Mars mission done.

Perhaps my complaints about its hardness are there because there is little else in the film I liked or cared about. The characters are all boring non-entities, the dialogue and humour is cringe-worthy, and the cinematography and soundtrack feel completely inappropriate.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I am resentful of the encroachment of this line of thinking. It strikes me as a deliberate attempt to make the cast more diverse in order to "empower" viewers to think that anyone can work at NASA. It may be a benign message, but I resent subtle propaganda like this being used to convey it. In the media, we're seeing disproportionate numbers of blacks, women, asians, and so on in roles; it does feel like a deliberate attempt by producers and studios to rub the public's face in diversity to make them accept their version of reality.

I think a more accurate thing to say is that the message is that everyone should be able to work at NASA. And that I'd doubt is a message you'd disagree with. Besides, it even relatively lies within the expected demographic developments of the US population, seeing as how white people are expected to make up a (large) minority in about 30 years. You could argue it's exactly the thing you'd show in a hard sci-fi movie instead of the current status-quo as that'd be more unrealistic.

Calling it propaganda isn't exactly fair either. Yes, every work of fiction carries some sort of message. Big ones, small ones, conservative ones, progressive ones, nihilistic ones, bombastic ones, you name it. But not every message is propaganda, and I don't see why this would clarify as that. To simply show the current status-quo as the future situation in a sci-fi movie like this sends a message just as much, maybe intentional or unintentional, but it does.

It's the same technique used by European governments (Germany, France, the UK, etc) who import migrants en masse to rub the face of the right in diversity and change the environment so opponents have to accept their version of reality. You simply import your desired demographics onto the screen, and then go with insinuations of racism or reactionaryism if a person feels as if the move is forced or has an agenda of normalising the disproportionate presence of minorities in higher tiers of media and industry.

Excuse me? As someone living through the current European refugee crisis as a European; you could not be further from the truth here. Important migrants en masse, saywhatnow?!

It certainly tries to be hard science fiction, and is best set in the genre for expediency. It is a terrible example of hard science fiction, however. The fact that Weir and Scott made some fundamental mistakes (which weren't for plot expediency) which could have easily been discovered and corrected betrays the fact that The Martian is not a work made which aspires to the peaks of hardness.

The work does not attempt to awe us with Mars. It shies away from showing how truly difficult it would be to be a stranded astronaut (or even a normal crew). And I'll reiterate how harmful the depiction of the Mars mission in the book is to actually getting a Mars mission done.

Eh, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find hard sci-fi that doesn't make certain mistakes. Whether they'd be detrimental is quite the extrapolation to make. With the stalling of the whole MarsOne spiel I wouldn't be surprised if the interested public is well aware of the difficulty of a mission as this

 

[OldNewNewOld]

I didn't watch the movie yet, honestly didn't even know about it until yesterday when I saw a commercial for it. I was kinda interested in the movie until the MC said something along the lines of "I'm gonna science the shit out of it." That was bad, just fucking bad. But then when he said In your face Neil Armstrong, I started laughing. That was so cringe worthy that I couldn't stop laughing at how bad it is.

I plan to watch it one day and hope it's not as bad as the commercial painted it.

 

[CosmicCommander]

I won't say much more. Just a response to:

Excuse me? As someone living through the current European refugee crisis as a European; you could not be further from the truth here. Important migrants en masse, saywhatnow?!

I was referring less to the current crisis than the trend in the EU since the Schengen Area was established, which has resulted in a large increase in migration into western European countries over the past 20 years. Cynically, it could be said that the senior figures in the EU and some western governments have encouraged this change in order to put into place an alteration in demographics to force the political conversation to change in their respective countries.

A good example is in the New Labour Government of Blair. Peter Mandelson went on record that the government sent out search parties to recruit migrants to come to the UK - with the clear goal of forcing more conservative elements of the Tories and working class elements of the Labour party to be condemned to irrelevance by forcing the political dialogue to centre around questions of tolerance, multiculturalism, and anti-racism in regards to the quantities of migrants in the country.

Demographic change has been cynically employed to change the political landscape.

 

[Liffguard]

In the media, we're seeing disproportionate numbers of blacks, women, asians, and so on in roles;

You're right, we do see these demographics disproportionately represented in the media. The thing is, this takes the form of underrepresentation rather than overrepresentation.

 

[Deacon Cole]

In fact, if one were to try to describe The Martian, it'd be "Interstellar crossed with Moon, with a little bit of Cast Away thrown in for good measure - but better than all three of those."

A faster way is "It's a remake of Robinson Crusoe On Mars, but without the silly aliens, monkey or Adam West in a brief cameo."


Not that I mind that RCOM has been remade. Of all the 60's sci-fi flicks, that one was one of the better ideas. Too bad they added a man Friday in the form of an alien guy and flying saucers and stuff. Sounds like the Martian is worth a look. Nice that Scott made a decent sci-fi movie after Prometheus.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

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

Spoiler

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

Spoiler

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.

Spoiler: radiation explanation

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

Spoiler: very good explanation

we deal with nuclear devices at my work and anytime any sort of exposure for that is mentioned, we literally just say "cover it with paper" as the simplest and easiest cover for it in a pinch.

that being said, when he is exposed to it daily for ~500 sols (can't remember when he comes across it and when he leaves exactly) you do have to wonder if we hit him with a geiger counter what it'd read when he got back to earth.

OT: loved the film to pieces, can't really put a finger on anything I disliked about it, although I will still never understand critics fap worthy obsession with moon, one of the most mediocre and "is it done yet?" films I've watched in the past 5 years.

 

[Hawki]

So, saw the film today. Gets a stamp of "okay" from me. Enjoyed it, but like the book more. Main issue for me is that I felt the attempts at humour didn't work that well, namely the use of montages and music. In the book, the humour was interwoven with the narrative, whereas in the film, it was more a case of "here's some music and wisecracks, now laugh until we get back to the serious stuff." It's certainly a step up from the likes of Interstellar and Prometheus, but falls short of other comparable films such as Gravity and Apollo 13.

Oh, and the ending sequence gave me flashbacks to Mission to Mars, which was a film I actually enjoyed. Make of that what you will.

 

[TimeLord]

Loved the film and by far I'd say the best joke there was 'Project Elrond'

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

and it's even better than Moon.

Well, of course it is. First, it's not just a satellite. Second, it has an actual atmosphere, thin yes, but that's still better than none. And NASA just discovered a liquid water on it's sur- oh you mean the movie?

Bold statement Marter, now i gotta watch it.

 

[Pinkamena]

Ok so he dug up that dying radiation thing to provide warmth during the night but why isn't he getting radiation posioning?

The radiation originates from the core of the heater, and is absorbed by the high-density material around it, which therefore heats up and provides warmth. No radiation reaches Mark.

 

[Flatfrog]

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)

Wait, what? What possible difference does it make 'logistically' to send a man rather than a woman on a long-distance mission? I'm fascinated to see how you can possibly justify that statement.

 

[Kahani]

Is it really as good as Moon?

I'd say it's better, although they're really not the same kind of films at all so they can't be directly compared. The Martian is essentially an action film, just with most of the action consisting of problem solving rather than punching robots or whatever. Moon is more a philosophical musing on the nature of personal identity. They have superficially similar settings, but they're just not the same kind of story.

Wait, what? What possible difference does it make 'logistically' to send a man rather than a woman on a long-distance mission? I'm fascinated to see how you can possibly justify that statement.

Actually, that's one of the few parts of his weird ranting that has some basis in reality. It comes down to simple biology - women have periods and can get pregnant, and those add all kinds of hygiene and medical complications into the mix. Reliance on drugs to control menstruation is a problem (what if their shelf life isn't long enough, or they get lost or damaged, what about the extra weight required to carry them, the possible interactions with other medical interventions, the effects on physiology, and so on), and anything other than eliminating them completely adds more complication to the already pretty tricky hygiene arrangements and yet more weight needed for supplies. And while you might hope the chance of anyone getting pregnant would be very low, expecting people not to be people on multi-year expeditions would be somewhat optimistic. And no matter how you try to prevent it, the consequences are so huge that even a tiny risk could be unacceptable. Of course, that issue could be prevented just as easily by an all-female expedition, so it's more an argument in favour of single gender rather than men specifically.

There may also be other biological considerations - men and women have different physiologies in many ways, including body fat, heat regulation, strength, fitness, and so on that could all contribute to one or the other being more suitable for experimental expeditions, although I don't know if that would actually come down in favour of men or women. Since you're dealing with a few selected individual, statistical differences aren't particularly relevant (ie. it doesn't matter that women are generally weaker as long as there are some who are strong enough), but something like a differing response to low gravity on bone growth might well be.

None of this should affect one's enjoyment of the film in any way, any more than the lack of explanation of how the engines worked should either. It's a technical problem which the film just assumes has been solved so it can get on with telling the actual story, and the only people likely to see it as a problem are the sorts who also get upset because NASA was portrayed as employing some of those dirty coloured people.

 

[Flatfrog]

Wait, what? What possible difference does it make 'logistically' to send a man rather than a woman on a long-distance mission? I'm fascinated to see how you can possibly justify that statement.

Actually, that's one of the few parts of his weird ranting that has some basis in reality. It comes down to simple biology - women have periods and can get pregnant, and those add all kinds of hygiene and medical complications into the mix. Reliance on drugs to control menstruation is a problem (what if their shelf life isn't long enough, or they get lost or damaged, what about the extra weight required to carry them, the possible interactions with other medical interventions, the effects on physiology, and so on), and anything other than eliminating them completely adds more complication to the already pretty tricky hygiene arrangements and yet more weight needed for supplies. And while you might hope the chance of anyone getting pregnant would be very low, expecting people not to be people on multi-year expeditions would be somewhat optimistic. And no matter how you try to prevent it, the consequences are so huge that even a tiny risk could be unacceptable. Of course, that issue could be prevented just as easily by an all-female expedition, so it's more an argument in favour of single gender rather than men specifically.

Obviously these things are all technically true, but to describe them as major logistical issues is still pretty sexist. Firstly, a woman choosing to travel to Mars could easily have an IUD fitted to prevent pregnancy, and menstruation is by no means the hygienic nightmare you seem to be suggesting (guess what - men bleed occasionally too). If you wanted to prevent menstruation too, we already have an effective one-year implant that prevents menstruation and pregnancy with close to 100% effectiveness, so it's hard to imagine we couldn't get that to work for the whole length of a Mars mission. If by some chance an astronaut did become pregnant despite all these available precautions, abortion isn't exactly a high-risk procedure either.

So all these arguments are really a bit ridiculous. They smack of all the ad-hoc arguments that used to be used to say women shouldn't be soldiers, or business leaders, or scientists. There's absolutely no reason a woman couldn't be an effective astronaut, even though, shock horror, occasionally she sheds some womb cells.

 

[sanamia]

Actually, that's one of the few parts of his weird ranting that has some basis in reality. It comes down to simple biology - women have periods and can get pregnant, and those add all kinds of hygiene and medical complications into the mix. Reliance on drugs to control menstruation is a problem (what if their shelf life isn't long enough, or they get lost or damaged, what about the extra weight required to carry them, the possible interactions with other medical interventions, the effects on physiology, and so on), and anything other than eliminating them completely adds more complication to the already pretty tricky hygiene arrangements and yet more weight needed for supplies.

Actually it's less of a problem as one would imagine.
Considering we are talking about a 8 year trip into space. The only logical solution is to freeze egg cells and sperm from the astronauts. Because no matter how hyper advanced your radiation shielding is you won't want to risk 8 years off space travel without a back-up plan.

Oh and stopping menstruations and fertility could be done for 8 years with a weight of something like 50gramm per female. There is this implant that has a shelf life of 5 years before it must be used, it lasts for 3 years. It utterly stops menstruation and fertility. All you need is someone who can stuff a giant ass needle in your arm and a bandage for 2-3 days. And if you send people out for 8 years I think they'll have someone with medical experience on-board.
So administer before take off, have two fresh spares. problem solved.

So shelf life is long enough, the weight is minimal (it's a big syringe with a 2-3gramm implant), even if you take a couple of spares. once in body your biggest problem is getting them out...

And if it was such a problem then tell me why was Samantha Cristoforetti able to spend 199 days on the ISS?

 

[Kahani]

Obviously these things are all technically true, but to describe them as major logistical issues is still pretty sexist.

No it isn't. Sexism, and bigotry in general, means treating people differently when there is no reason to do so. When in a situation where biological differences are important, noting what those differences are and what the consequences might be is not in any way sexist.

Firstly, a woman choosing to travel to Mars could easily have an IUD fitted to prevent pregnancy

Which is a medical device with a chance of complications and failure. That's the entire point - it's not that women can't go to space, it's simply that the biological differences mean there are greater risks. A man cannot get pregnant, end of story. A woman can, and the ways to prevent that are all imperfect and carry increased risk. I'm certainly not the one who decides whether the risks are small enough or not (although personally I don't think we're anywhere near the point where it would be sane to send anyone to Mars at all), but that doesn't mean the risk can just be ignored. If we ever actually have a manned Mars mission, these issues and their potential will have been considered at great length, they will certainly not have been dismissed out of hand because some people get upset that all people aren't identical in every way.

and menstruation is by no means the hygienic nightmare you seem to be suggesting (guess what - men bleed occasionally too).

Bleeding occasionally as the result of an accident is a very different matter from doing so regularly, especially when that bleeding is merely the most obvious sign of a much more complex biological procedure, while a cut is just a cut. And menstruation absolutely is a hygienic nightmare, because absolutely anything involving bodily fluids is a hygienic nightmare, especially when you're dealing with a very small, self-contained system in which any minor problem can result in everyone dying. Astronauts already need all kinds of complicated systems and procedures to deal with waste disposal and hygiene. Menstruation adds extra complication to that, and that's all that's needed for it to be a problem that needs solving.

If you wanted to prevent menstruation too, we already have an effective one-year implant that prevents menstruation and pregnancy with close to 100% effectiveness, so it's hard to imagine we couldn't get that to work for the whole length of a Mars mission.

Except that we haven't done so so far, despite having one that worked longer being useful in plenty of ways that don't require going to Mars. And again, drugs have potential interactions and side-effects, and the pill and implants have plenty of very well known ones.

If by some chance an astronaut did become pregnant despite all these available precautions, abortion isn't exactly a high-risk procedure either.

But it is a risk, and again that's all that matters. There is one extremely easy way to reduce that risk to zero, and various other ways that don't reduce the risk to zero. Maybe we'll find other ways that do, or decide that a lesser reduction is enough, but the risk is there and it needs to be considered.

So all these arguments are really a bit ridiculous. They smack of all the ad-hoc arguments that used to be used to say women shouldn't be soldiers, or business leaders, or scientists.

They are not in any way ridiculous, and whining about sexism isn't going to change that. You admit yourself that there are risks, and that is all that matters. Space travel is a risky business, and the people involved in it go to huge lengths to reduce that risk as much as possible. If all-male expeditions can eliminate enough risk to make the PR fallout of "Wah! Sexism!" worthwhile, then that's what will happen. If you actually read all of my last post, you'll notice that I specifically said there's no problem enjoying the film since you can just assume these problems have been solved. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to pretend there wasn't a problem that needed solving in the first place.

And if it was such a problem then tell me why was Samantha Cristoforetti able to spend 199 days on the ISS?

199 days a couple of hours from Earth is a very different proposition from 4 years with no possibility of rescue. A risk that's perfectly acceptable when you're hours away from medical help is not necessarily acceptable when there is no help to be had.

 

[sanamia]

Sorry but now you're just trying to be unreasonable. If menstruation was such a hygienic nightmare (it's not) then what do you do when people need to poop? honestly that's way worse just imagine all that shit flying around! Oh wait it doesn't...

Facts are you can utterly stop menstruations, but we can't stop people from pooping. The "risks" are non existent, if thousands of woman can do with implants then a couple of properly vetted astronauts surely can.

Then again you very likely have "older" people for such a mission like 35 and up. add in 8 years of space and I doubt you would even have one woman who doesn't just get her tubes cut before the mission. Which even with young females would be easy to do as again just freeze the eggs. heck sterilize the men too, not like they can't just freeze sperm... so pregnancy risk is zero.

risks there are always risks, imagine a male could get testicular torsion, testicle cancer, whatnot. Now we could reduce that risk by removing testicles before launch... doubt they like that though, an implant is soo much less risk.

 

[Flatfrog]

it's not that women can't go to space, it's simply that the biological differences mean there are greater risks

No, I'm still not going to accept this and I still claim these arguments are ad hoc.

I don't deny that menstruation and pregnancy constitute small risks. But I am going to deny absolutely that those kinds of small risk factors would outweigh any of the other myriad factors that affect the decision of who would be the best choice for a Mars mission.

If we simply go by gender factors alone, there could easily be other factors that affect men statistically more than women that might be enough to change the balance. Men are statistically more prone to violence, which might be a significant issue on a long-term mission.

But far more importantly, there are hundreds of other criteria that would be used to choose one candidate over another. Whether they might have an incredibly small chance of experiencing complications from a hormonal implant or IUD is surely infinitessimally important compared to their many other skills.

You can deny it as much as you like, but to claim women are intrinsically less suitable for a job is a sexist position. You might as well be saying they can't be astronauts because they have cooties.

 

[sanamia]

it's not that women can't go to space, it's simply that the biological differences mean there are greater risks

Stop right there! because that can be turned around.


half an hour of digging through medical stuff... "Journal of Men?s Health and Gender. Vol 1. No.4 pp 341-344. Dec. 2004."
Women have a considerable advantage because of endothelial protection, provided by estrogen, greater uptake of Mg in progressively diminishing storage sites in skeletal muscle and bone, and a physiological loss of iron, which is conducive to oxidative stress.

Basically it's all about menstruation is a good thing in space because iron levels. Sure we could also tap some blood every couple of weeks... Men still lack the estrogen levels to avoid things like the Apollo 15 sickness though.
Downside: during menstruation spacewalks can be troublesome.