Slashdot Mirror
Former NASA Mission Controller James Oberg Lauds 'The Martian'
At IEEE Spectrum, James Oberg gives high praise to the upcoming film The Martian (release date: October 2).
Oberg doesn't have much to say about the acting; he concentrates on the physics and plausibility of the plot and the technology portrayed, which beat those of most Hollywood space epics, and notes in particular "There’s no cheating on even highly-technical spaceflight topics, as shown in the treatment of the so-called “Rich Purnell maneuver,” wherein the Hermes slingshots past Earth back to Mars for a desperate pickup attempt. ... The basic strategy of the Rich Purnell maneuver is not fictional—a crippled Japanese Mars probe named Nozomi actually used a similar Earth-flyby scheme to set up a second chance for its own faltering unmanned Mars mission a dozen years ago."
Oberg's background gives his appraisal some weight -- he's a former NASA mission controller who specialized in orbital rendezvous maneuvers. He has some quibbles, too, with the way mission personnel are depicted, and notes one excursion into "fantasy mode" near the fim's close, but concludes that it's a fair trade for the overwhelming sense of realism.
Having read the original book (and would highly recommend it), I still expect to be disappointed by the film adaptation. The science in the film may be solid, and we can indeed be grateful for that, but there are other aspects of adapting a novel where Hollywood can make the result feel compromised. Think of all the tired old tropes they could throw in there, like slow-motion shots of characters at poignant times, an intrusive film score that tries to jerk the audience emotionally in a particular direction, or the acting itself where it's hard to suspend disbelief when it's Matt Damon up there and he's not known for smoothly entering into roles and going unrecognized as Matt Damon.
I find it odd that you rail on the 2003 era BSG remake, because on most of these points, it did far better than any of its predecessors. Was it perfect? No, but on the grading curve of modern sci-fi accuracy (nevermind compared to the "real" one you laud), it was pretty damn good for how it handled its space battles, physics, etc. Pretty much the only exception was #3, within the confines of any of the large ships, but when out in the fighters, it was pretty apparent.
*double snicker*
For me, the experience of reading it was the scientific equivalent of MST3K - at least one hilariously bad science error per page when stuff is actually happening. Sometimes numerous. Protagonist not noticing that the hydrogen levels are Mickey Mouse-voice high and the oxygen levels unconsciousness-levels low? Check! 2-3 orders of magnitude too little light to grow crops? Check! Not even understanding how photosynthesis works? Check! Fraction-of-a-percent-as-dense-as-Earth atmosphere wreaking havoc in a windstorm? Check! Page after page of the same confusion between moles of a substance and liters of it? Check! Giant rant full of superlatives about how dangerous the radiation of 238-Pu is? Check! And a thousand more checks, just over and over again. If I wrote up a book describing all of the science errors in The Martian, it'd be longer than The Martian.
I guess the book is more enjoyable to people who this stuff doesn't jump out of - to me it was like the author kept interrupting the book to hold up a sign reading "I Got A D Average In My High School Science Classes". Then again, even if the science hadn't been so terrible, the author's writing probably would have ruined it for me anyway. All of the characters have the same "voice", which comes across like that of a teenage boy. In the case of our protagonist, that of a "botanist" who hardly ever uses a single scientific term but is obsessed with his butt. And with all of the scientific equipment given old school pulp sci-fi names like "oxygenator" and such.
"This administration is so incompetent that they cover their tracks with bigger tracks." - Seth Meyers
It's good when the science is accurate, that doesn't happen often enough. I remember watching the Ninja Turtles movie and practically screaming at my wife:
Me: They just got bled almost dry and now they're being given ADRENALINE?! That wouldn't wake them up, it'd put them into cardiac arrest!!!
Her: It's a movie about sewer dwelling mutant turtles, taught by a mutant rat, fighting a ninja war in America, and THAT'S your plot hole?
I hate printers.
Can you do a huge favor for those of us who thought The Martian was, relative to most other science fiction, well-written both in technical and in literary terms? Suggest some better books that will entertain us as well without having so many problems as you have identified in The Martian. This probably sounds sarcastic, but it's really quite sincere. I cannot be the only person reading Slashdot who wants to read something like The Martian except better. Thank you!
also, you know, turtle physiology probably isn't your forte.
Seriously? Are you so devoid of empathy or concern for your fellow man that you're willing to go "screw him"? Do you also wonder why people spend godawful amounts of money on search and recovery (not rescue) operations? And a lot of that money is provided by you, the taxpayer, too.
Marines call it "Semper Fi" (Semper Fidelis - Always Faithful) - you don't leave a man behind. It doesn't matter that two random Marines might not know each other, or even trained together, or even fought together - the principle is universal - you bring the guy home. (If you want to comment about movie inaccuracy, wonder how Semper Fi plays out when the on-screen Marines die and everyone else carries on - in Sci-Fi, it's almost always "Space Marines" (never space soldiers or whatever).
Heck, even NASA went to the ends of the earth trying to bring back Apollo 13 successfully, even though they prepared for the worst.
More related to The Martian, why bring Mark Watney home? Well, you've got this team of people together who trained for months and years together. And you had to leave one behind. At the time, it seemed like the right thing to do (he was dead, and while you'd certainly want to bring back the body for the family (see search and recovery above), if it's not possible, it's not possible. On the other hand, leaving a person behind is probably the worst nightmare any leader has - the guilt will easily compromise even the most stoic of leaders.
Point is - even if you do not care for someone, there's still a innate human desire to bring them home. Even if they're dead. Or, at the very least, to do right and give them a proper sendoff. If they're alive, then it becomes moving heaven and earth to get them back and not leave them.
Heck, Watney is an ass through the book. You're not supposed to completely like him. But you still want to get him back, just because.