Slashdot Mirror
Review: The Martian
Let's briefly discuss the book, first. If you haven't read it, I recommend doing so. In short: near-future astronaut Mark Watney gets stranded on the surface of Mars, and must figure out how to stay alive using only the limited resources at hand. This is hard science fiction. Weir meticulously researched all the problems facing Watney, without giving him magically advanced technology to defeat them.
The story is largely told through Watney's journal updates, which read remarkably like following a brilliant engineer's blog while he solves fascinating problems. Weir also infuses Watney with dry humor and an unwillingness to be told that the right way is wrong. For being so dense with science and engineering, the book manages to have a rapid pace.
Fortunately, that pace made the transition to film a bit easier, as did the book's narrative form. Watney's thought processes tend to be spoken, rather than a typical internal monologue, and this keeps it more conversational and brief. In the novel, when Watney has to "do the math" — for example to figure out the hydrogen levels in his living space — you follow along as he actually does the math, then as he develops a procedure to safely lower those levels. The movie tackles this complex scene by making him discover the problem right when it begins, with a small amount of hydrogen igniting dramatically. It keeps the science and the problem-solving, but conveys it quickly and moves on.
That's the real triumph of this movie's creators — they accelerate the plot while maintaining the book's love and respect for science and for thoughtful engineering. They embellish for interesting visuals, like the martian wind, and for dramatic license. But they never go over the top. It's... refreshing, to say the least.
One thing the film does even better than the book is bringing intensity to particular scenes. It's one thing to read Watney's account of how he dealt with an emergency in past tense — it's another to see it as it's happening. The first scene of Watney alone on Mars is incredibly tense and visceral.
This is largely due to Matt Damon's performance as Watney (and to Ridley Scott, for enabling that performance). Damon does a great job coming off not as a movie superhero, but as a funny, capable guy you might run into at your local makerspace. The other roles in the film are well cast and performed, too. Jeff Daniels as the director of NASA is the closest the movie gets to having a 'bad guy.'
He's the one who tends to raise the practical and ethical questions surrounding Watney's predicament. How many resources should be allocated to helping a single man? What will be the cost to future missions if they don't? They're impossible questions to answer, but they deserved to be brought up and debated.
One of the big reasons to see this film is for its cinematography. If you're a space buff, you'll really enjoy the long, lingering shots of the Martian surface. The graphic artists really deserve commendation. They make the landscape look both desolate and fascinating. They had lots of source material to work with from all the rovers and orbiters we've sent to Mars, and they used it to fill each scene with incredible detail. Look carefully and you'll see one of Mars's lumpy moons in the background of a shot on the surface, or a dust storm slowly flowing across a vast mesa when looking down from orbit.
The Martian, much like Apollo 13 twenty years ago, inspires us to cheer on our civilization's brightest scientists and engineers to solve hideously complex problems. NASA has been falling all over itself to help promote the film, and for good reason. I think the reception of this film will show support is still there from the general public to go and do really challenging missions. The Martian the best movie I've seen all year, and I highly recommend it.
I read an interview with Weir that says that the Windstorm on Mars is the one thing that couldn't have happened as it did in the book. But it was necessary to strand Watney.
The other thing that is mentioned is the radioactive heater (OK it was a power source, but it is only used for the heat it gives off) that Watney retrieves. At the moment it is possible, just not surviving being close to it, but this could change in the near future. The book is set around 2030, so this one could be possible by then.
The other thing that is mentioned is the radioactive heater (OK it was a power source, but it is only used for the heat it gives off) that Watney retrieves. At the moment it is possible, just not surviving being close to it
Slashdot reader "Rei" would disagree with you. He says that the radioactive materials inside an RTG are just "alpha particle" emitters, and alpha particles are a not-that-dangerous sort of radiation.
In fact "Rei" criticises Andy Weir for not knowing how relatively safe an RTG is:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8114017&threshold=3&commentsort=0&mode=nested&cid=50655133
Pu-238 (which really is what you build those with, the Apollo missions used them) only emits significant quantities of alpha particles - which you really /can/ basically stand next to something producing with no particular ill effects. They're high-energy helium nuclei. Paper or your /skin/ is enough to stop them, and we build them with a layer or two of solid metal structure around them to keep them quite safe when we're building RTGs.
Now, if you eat or breathe the contents, and you'll probably die.
I don't recall whether he got Pu-238 and Pu-239 mixed up, but if anything the RTG in the book is described as /more/ dangerous than the real ones. (OTOH, we did make that kind of big deal about them for the Apollo missions, out of a great abundance of caution.)
Fully agree. Is Mars such a hospitable place so that you have to think of a fake reason in order to get somebody in a story stranded on it?
Spoilers below: I agree liked the movie. Good science on the orbital mechanics and many of the issues. The ending was far fetched. The small amount of mass expelled by blowing the hatch would have little effect on the speed of the ship.The risk of unintended irreparable damage would be massive. Why not use attitude thrusters or just turn the ship around and use the main engine sounded like they had plenty of fuel. I would think they would have considered needing to make course adjustments before hand and stopped the habitat rotation so attitude control was easy. I was disappointed when he used plastic sheet and duct tape to replace the airlock that blew off the habitat. No way a thin sheet of plastic is going to hold 12psi needed to make the habitat habitable over that 8 ft diameter hole. Similar issue with the bubble taped to the rover for storing supplies. Might be possible with some kevlar fiber reinforced material but not the clear poly sheet he appears to use. Sealing the plastic to the habitat and rover adequately would be just about impossible. Still liked the movie and may read the book.
I want to sincerely thank you for being that guy. Your honesty and critical view is what this world is sorely lacking.
The amount of apologism for shit in ridiculous-budget movies that could easily have been done right is insane. Bullshit replies like 'you must be fun at parties' or "it's just a movie" really piss me off. They pretty much translate to "Shut up, nerd. Don't talk shit about stuff I like."
Given that this is a site with 'news for nerds', we're talking about a 'sciency' movie, and that the entire fucking point of science is to be absolutely honest, objective, thorough and accurate make it extra sad that that is what your objectivity gets you.
So again: thank you and don't let all the Hollywood-apologists ever deter you. Keep calling it like you see it! Maybe then someday, actually well and attentively written scripts will become the norm instead of the rare exception.