Slashdot Mirror
What Ridley Scott Has To Say About the Science In "The Martian"
An anonymous reader writes: Sciencemag has an interview with the people behind the movie The Martian. Director Ridley Scott, author Andy Weir, and Jim Green, NASA's director of planetary science and an adviser on the film talk about the technology and the science in the movie. Scott says: "Almost immediately [after] I decided to do it, we started to have conversations with NASA about process, the habitats, the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV), the suits and everything. And they sent us pictures, almost like photographs, of what they hoped it would all be. If there had been anything in [the screenplay] that actually was suspect—they are not shy—they would have said so."
Cute: at the start of TFA Ridley Scott provides the quote given above ('... if there had been anything suspect they would've said so'), which is kind of suspect in itself given that we know that 'The Martian' isn't technically flawless. Then later in TFA, NASA's director of planetary science cheerfully and honestly demonstrates exactly this by listing a bunch of things that were understood as being 'close but not exactly correct', including the Martian dust storm which sets up the entire story of the book. At which time Weir states that he 'deliberately sacrificed reality for drama with the dust storm'. At which point Scott pretty much demolishes his own earlier quote by saying, 'there's a bit of cheating here and there. Eventually they all say, well, you're making movies, so we’ll forgive you!'
On the whole the article reads as though Weir and Green are on the same page throughout, including a shared understanding of the inconsistencies that did make it into the story; not so much Scott...
It is factually inaccurate. For one, last I checked this Matt Damon guy is an actor, not an astronaut. For the life of my I cannot believe NASA let that one go by!!!
Also I noticed that they were using things manufactured before 2015, which this being a movie about the future, likely they would have at least one item manufactured after this date. At this point I couldn't take it any longer and I had to walk out.
Science is good, even when it is delivered in the cinema, where it is likely to garner some youthful adherents.
Who among you was not inspired in youth by some not-too-realistic science fiction movie?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Gravity did that as a marketing angle and it worked, despite Sandra Bullock floating vast distances from one spaceship to another.
Interstellar then ramped it up a notch, even with the ridiculous blight that breaths nitrogen which somehow steals all the oxygen.... and if you can build a spaceship that isn't contaminated with blight ridden air, why do you need to launch it into space at all? And that grunt sound he makes as he goes past the event horizon.... to remind you that gravity is real strong here.... seriously!??
So now all movies have to claim to be scientifically accurate.
BTW, if you ever want to see a scifi movie Sunshine from 2007 is far more scientific than any of these, and get past the 'Golden Girls" style crappy title and its a real gem of a movie.
From what I gather from the trailers, this wasn't a colonization mission, so why, if they sent seeds and fertilizer, did they send seeds and fertilizer?
This is neatly covered in the plot. The crops he grows are potatoes, grown from supplies sent along for preparing a Thanksgiving dinner. (Most of the meals are preserved packets with no viable seeds, but the mission planners thought it would be psychologically beneficial for them to prepare a meal from raw ingredients for a special occasion.) The growth medium is a few handfuls of proper soil, sent along for an experiment to test the growth of (inedible) plants in Martian gravity, which supply the necessary soil bacteria; a whole lot of Martian dust for structure and minerals; water synthesised from leftover rocket fuel; and his own shit, generated while he's still living off the leftover meal packets.
There are technical inaccuracies in the book (and presumably the movie), but this isn't one of them. Okay, there is one inaccuracy here: he'd have to rinse the Martian soil to rid it of perchlorates, which isn't mentioned in the book.
And this is why there's so much hype about it. It's close enough to reality that I learn a bit of science by reading it. And even when it's wrong, I learn a bit more science by reading about why it's wrong. Star Wars doesn't do anything like that.
did they send seeds and fertilizer?
Naw. For the fertilizer he just pulled it out of his ASStronaut
People didn't expect Gravity to do as well as it did. This paved the way for Interstellar and The Martian. There is a big market for these kinds of movies that was untapped for quite a while, and its finally getting quite a few good developments.
While its just a movie, and a lot of it is drama oriented, a key in all these movies is that they limit their plot choices via science to some extent. A lot of recent sci-fi movies decided to use science as a dues ex to do whatever the hell they wanted instead, which removes the focus from the science entirely and turns it into just an action movie in space. Its a very different approach that produces very different results, and in my opinion, good results. I like movies that make you think.
The hype is because the book on which the film is based is very good and apparently the director - this time - is actually making a movie based on the book rather than simply copy the name of the book and taking from his ass a completely different story.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Since when did "science fiction" need to be scientifically accurate I must have missed that memo.